Sheer (shia) Madness

[Womble]

I think this article reflects the depths of despair the yanks are in regarding Iraq

Pentagon arms its enemy's enemies in Iraq

The US military has embarked on a new and risky strategy in Iraq by arming Sunni insurgents in the hope that they will tackle al-Qaida operatives in Iraq.
The US high command this month gave permission to its officers on the ground to negotiate arms deals with tribal elders and other local leaders. Arms, ammunition, body armour and other equipment, as well as cash, pickup trucks and fuel, have already been handed over in return for promises to turn on al-Qaida and not attack US troops.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2100596,00.html

[BBKing]

This is dangerously close to realistic politics, for the US in Iraq. As usual, Patrick Lang is on the case:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...ary_frien.html

Can you trust them? Will they be loyal to the Americans (or the government)? Is this "paying protection money?" Will this hurt the Iraqi government?

The answers; No. Not necessarily. No. Maybe (So what!)

- You can't logically make a comparison between 1 - paying a hoodlum in the US not to beat you up and 2 - supporting a dissident guerrilla leader who may be of use to you in an insurgency in a foreign country. This is isn't Sunday School, folks. Did you really think that the various kinds of Iraqis were going to become ardent candidates for Alderman, Councilman, Member of School Board, etc. just because you think they should be eager to be what you think they should be? If you do think that, you should get out more.

It's been pretty obvious that reckless al-Qaeda style extremism is Not Popular in huge swathes of the Muslim world, mainly those that have to pick up the pieces (it is quite popular in parts of the Pakistani ruling elite though, which is where most of the trouble these days starts). This doesn't mean that the Pax Americana is necessarily particularly popular, nor, in the case of Anbar Sunnis, the fact that Iran is now calling the shots. They don't like any of them, much, but the AQ boys killing Shias (and moderate Sunnis - AQ have been blowing up mosques recently) really gets to them in terms of inciting retaliation they could really do without. There's also nothing in it for them, of course.

I'm not sure how this fits with the US claiming that Iran was supplying Sunni extremists with weapons, though. That was supposed to be a Bad Thing, I seem to remember. Joe Liebermann thinks the US should bomb Iran now because of it, in fact (but he is, of course, an idiot).

[Xaccers]

Isn't this standard US policy?
I'm sure given time it will actually make it into the bill of rights.
"Right to arm my enemy's enemy and go whoops when those arms are used against Americans"
Maybe they've forgotten about Bin Laden?

[BBKing]

Bin who?

It's quite likely that if the US withdrew, the jihadists would find themselves in the position of Number One Unwanted Foreigners and would have to retreat or give up breathing privileges (also, who the hell would they fight?). Assuming that the permanent base theory of US occupation is untenable, a US withdrawal having paid someone else to dispose of the local AQ franchise might well be spinnable as 'victory'.

Apropos of nothing, the US is so embedded in Iraq with so much stuff that it would apparently take about ten months to withdraw. During that time, the UK mugs down in Basra are covering the only route out, into Kuwait.

There are also interesting moves towards a moderate Sunni-Shia nationalist group going on, which, since it involves al-Sadr, isn't wholly to the US's liking (preferring to work with Iran-supported ex-terrorists with death squad links, for some reason).

As the saying goes, you can't buy an Iraqi tribe, but you can rent one for a bit.

[Xaccers]

I'm reminded of the parable about the fox and the scorpian.
You'd have thought with animals in it, Bush would be aware of it?