The Myth of the Surge
Issandr El AmraniFrom Nir Rosen's The Myth of the Surge in Rolling Stone, on the co-optation of former insurgents that had caused a decline in violence over the past year in Iraq :
But loyalty that can be purchased is by its very nature fickle. Only months ago, members of the Awakening were planting IEDs and ambushing U.S. soldiers. They were snipers and assassins, singing songs in honor of Fallujah and fighting what they viewed as a war of national liberation against the foreign occupiers. These are men the Americans described as terrorists, Saddam loyalists, dead-enders, evildoers, Baathists, insurgents. There is little doubt what will happen when the massive influx of American money stops: Unless the new Iraqi state continues to operate as a vast bribing machine, the insurgent Sunnis who have joined the new militias will likely revert to fighting the ruling Shiites, who still refuse to share power.
"We are essentially supporting a quasi-feudal devolution of authority to armed enclaves, which exist at the expense of central government authority," says Chas Freeman, who served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "Those we are arming and training are arming and training themselves not to facilitate our objectives but to pursue their own objectives vis-a-vis other Iraqis. It means that the sectarian and ethnic conflicts that are now suppressed are likely to burst out with even greater ferocity in the future."
Maj. Pat Garrett, who works with the 2-2 Stryker Cavalry Regiment, is already having trouble figuring out what to do with all the new militiamen in his district. There are too few openings in the Iraqi security forces to absorb them all, even if the Shiite-dominated government agreed to integrate them. Garrett is placing his hopes on vocational-training centers that offer instruction in auto repair, carpentry, blacksmithing and English. "At the end of the day, they want a legitimate living," Garrett says. "That's why they're joining the ISVs."
But men who have taken up arms to defend themselves against both the Shiites and the Americans won't be easily persuaded to abandon their weapons in return for a socket wrench. After meeting recently in Baghdad, U.S. officials concluded in an internal report, "Most young Concerned Local Citizens would probably not agree to transition from armed defenders of their communities to the local garbage men or rubble cleanup crew working under the gaze of U.S. soldiers and their own families." The new militias have given members of the Awakening their first official foothold in occupied Iraq. They are not likely to surrender that position without a fight. The Shiite government is doing little to find jobs for them, because it doesn't want them back, and violence in Iraq is already starting to escalate. By funding the ISVs and rearming the Sunnis who were stripped of their weapons at the start of the occupation, America has created a vast, uncoordinated security establishment. If the Shiite government of Iraq does not allow Sunnis in the new militias to join the country's security forces, warns one leader of the Awakening, "It will be worse than before."
An interesting piece with a lot of surprisingly negative commentary by US forces and officials -- read it all.
Reader Comments (29)
"'In Saddam's time, nobody knew what is Sunni and what is Shiite,' he says. The Bush administration based its strategy in Iraq on the mistaken notion that, under Saddam, the Sunni minority ruled the Shiite majority. In fact, Iraq had no history of serious sectarian violence or civil war between the two groups until the Americans invaded...
Can somebody who knows something post on whether this is a crock, and whether including state sponsored violence makes it more (or less) of a crock?
I'm not exactly an expert, but I've studied this some -- my MA thesis was on the Shia in Iraq under Saddam Hussein (I finished it in 1999). There is ample evidence that Saddam Hussein used sectarian divisions during the Iran-Iraq war against certain Shia religious leaders, and to put the issue of fighting at the front a litmus test for Iraqi Shias (the majority of the low-ranking soldiers who faced the worst of that war.) Obviously the Saddam regime was heavily biased towards north-central Sunnis, although this might be a provincialism ("Tikritism") rather than over sectarianism (although conversely you might say Syria has a largely Alawi ruling elite rather than a Lattakian one, or at least an Alawi and eastern Sunni one). And obviously there was a huge increase in sectarianism during and after the 1990 Gulf War, including the deliberate arming of Sunni tribes and the draining of the marshes in southern Iraq. Even before the Saddam regime you can point to sectarian issues raising their head, although at least under the monarchy you had parties that had a distinctly anti-sectarian agenda; the newer post-monarchy parties such as the Baath often had a strong provincial element in them (not the Communists). Going back to the 19th century there is a massive influx of Sunni tribes from Arabia that has a sectarian element to it, although not in a modern sense. Throughout the 20th century sectarian differences, notably the idea of shuubiya (hidden persian loyalty of Iraqi Shias) is present though not dominant in national discourse.
And we haven't even talked about the Kurds.
It is true intermarriage was widespread, that tribes had both Sunni and Shia elements, and that in everyday life party affiliation was probably the single most important thing, and that many Shias joined the party (although joining the Baath was a bit like joining the Communist Party in China or USSR -- you had no choice if you wanted career advancement). And it is if course true that things have gotten much worse since the US invasion. That being said, in the 1990s Saddam Hussein and the international sanctions played a big role making things worse on a sectarian basis. So it's rather a big whopper to say as Nir does that "In fact, Iraq had no history of serious sectarian violence or civil war between the two groups until the Americans invaded."
Well spotted. That being said, speaking of the army as a national cross-sectarian institution, it does appear true that generally speaking the army was respected as a national institution and that the vast majority of Shias took part in the war against Iran in the name of defending their country, not their sect. At least until Saddam did the old Hitler trick and had his most competent generals killed, his soldiers used as cannon fodder (with some allegations that Shias were put in the first lines), the population closest to the front (often largely Shia) abused and began turning on ethnic minorities deemed insufficiently loyal to him or the war effort (i.e. the kurds to start with, with Halabja in 1988.)
Incidentally, Saddam occasionally claimed he was Shia when it suited him, wearing some traditional Shia tribal dress and claiming descent from Hussein. But then again it appears at times he wanted to be a Tyrolian.
The claim that there was no Sunni-Shia tension under Saddam and it was just an invention of Americans itching to invade is something that was repeated by a lot of otherwise well-meant lefty intellectuals in 2003. I heard Aziz al-Azmeh get quite worked up about that, and he probably based that assessment on his interaction with Iraqi/pan-Arabist elites. I guess anti-imperialism trumps sympathy for the masses there.
Didn't Robert Fisk also deny the Kosovars were worthy underdogs to support, back in 1999? Something about their being drug-running mafiosi?
"The claim that there was no Sunni-Shia tension under Saddam and it was just an invention of Americans itching to invade is something that was repeated by a lot of otherwise well-meant lefty intellectuals in 2003."
Well they didn't just pull it out of their ass, a LOT of Iraqis will say something to that effect too, though obviously statements of both extremes are incredibly flawed.
Political Islam was not welcome in Iraq whether it was of a Sunni or Shiite strand. Consequantly Shiites who supported political shiite parties like the Da3wah party and co. were bashed. That of course went for MBs and other radical sunni Islamic groups.
Also it was natural to deport citizens of mixed Irani origin to Iran when war against the terrorist funadamentalist "Welayit Faqueeh" Iran was taking palce.
"Citizens of mixed Irani origins" actually consisted of a fair number of people, and that definition was used to get rid of certain political dissidents (or just suspect people) notably those associated with the (old) Hakim. Considering Iraq's history and the constant flux of Shia scholars between Najaf, Kerbala, Qum and other cities in countries where there were centers of Shia scholarship, discriminating against Shia citizens because they had a grandfather who was Persian does seem rather much.
In my rather limited experience with Iraq, the people who say there was no sectarian bias and Sunnis and Shias lived side by side tend to be, a) Sunnis, b) the more comfortable city dwellers. The Shiites in Sadr City and the south very clearly had some very deep grievances against the government/Sunnis, hence their nasty treatment of them once they came to power. Also, the Qaeda-influenced aspect of the insurgency did aim a lot of their attacks on Shiite civilians and their rhetoric was pretty virulent against the Shiites -- I think that may have stoked the sectarian flames a bit, culminating in the Golden Mosque. US policies certainly didn't help the matter, but I would take the "we always got along until the outsiders came" sentiments of some Iraqis with the same grain of salt as that of some Lebanese.
The claim that there was NO Sunni-Shia tension in Iraq, none whatsoever, till the Americans came along most certainly came out of someone's ass, and the "lot of Iraqis" who say that can't really speak for the whole. Whether the degree of tension was accurately described by Americans or anyone else is of course debatable.
the more comfortable city dwellers
No way!
and the “lot of Iraqis� who say that can’t really speak for the whole.
I never said they did.
Do you think the current conditions of the occupation had NO role in playing up these divisions? There's hyperbole on both ends of the debate, but I've entered into it far too many times already to yell at a strawman every time I'm presented with one.
Dear Arabist I have just posted a comment that is being rejected by the system.
Kindly see to it. Or are you afraid of losing theargument?
I am afraid you are not being relaistic on this. The much smaller progressive Iraq was going through a ferocious existentialstic war against a fantic medieval eb´nemy charged wityh Queda like ideologies. Containg citizens of Iranian orgin was normal. That is a very natural procedure when a country is fighting a survival war.
Anyway, Iranian Iraqis would no way exceed the figure 200,000, at best. So they were 1 or 2% of population.
Nevertheless, Days have proven the long vision and wisdom Of Sadam, AS WE ARE ALL WITNESSING HOW TH SIITE ARABIC CLANS IN THE SOUTH ARE BEING TERRORISED AND KILLED BY THE PRO-IRAN SHIITES. Haven't you heard about the petition signed by the confederation of southern shiite Arab clans calling upon Egypt, Arab countries and the U.N to stand up to the Iranian occupation of Iraq?
Haven't you heard about the driling and acidication and the horrible crimes perptuated by the sectarian gangs from Iran in Iraq??????!!!!!!
What happened to peaceful Japanese Americans in World war2?
What happene to German Americans in world war 1.
I also wonder how would the American government venture to treat American Mestizos citizens in case Mexico went crazy and invaded Texas and New Mexico in a surprise attack???. Or How would Irish people living in England would have been treated, had Ireland joined in with Hitler.
As far I am concerned , Arab teritorial integerity and life is by far more important that that of any other nationality.
Dear Arabist
I have been trying t post this but all in vain.
Since you are an Arabist who is so keen Arabic culture, why dont you speak a bit about the Oprressed and culturally suppressed Ahwas Arabs on the occupied Eastern shore of the ARABIAN GULF?
Why don't you venture to ttackle the forced Persianisation of of the Azeri Turks?
Do you think that is the right time to talk about sunnioshiites discrapencies? You are actually justifying the occupation and rape of Iraq by putting forward this strange argument. You are sayin that Americans did a good thing by invading Iraq, in order to save the Iraqis of an IRANIAN ORIGIN.
Those who care about humanity 8 I wont say Arabs) must work all their best to highlight the emphasise the Arab discourse as opposed to the sctarian one encouraged by Iran
Since you are an Arabist who is so keen Arabic culture, why dont you speak a bit about the Oprressed and culturally suppressed Ahwas Arabs on the occupied Eastern shore of the ARABIAN GULF?
Why don't you venture to ttackle the forced Persianisation of of the Azeri Turks?Do you think that is the right time to talk about sunnioshiites discrapencies? You are actually justifying the occupation and rape of Iraq by putting forward this strange argument. You are sayin that Americans did a good thing by invading Iraq, in order to save the Iraqis of an IRANIAN ORIGIN.Those who care about humanity 8 I wont say Arabs) must work all their best to highlight the emphasise the Arab discourse as opposed to the sctarian one encouraged by Iran
Arabis the seond part of my comment doesn't come out. Please see to it.
Do you think that is the appropriate time to talk about sunni-shiites differences? you are actually justifying the occupation and rape of Iraq by putting forward this strange argument. You are saying that Americans did a good thing by invading Iraq, in order to save the Iraqis of an IRANIAN ORIGIN. Those who care about humanity ( I wont say Arabs) must work all their best to highlight the Arab discourse as opposed to the sectarian one encouraged by Iran and the U.S
Secondly, who gave the U.S the right to interfere for protecting shiites. Has someone assigned the U.S the protector of democracy and the world while we don't know about it? Besides who said, in the very firt place, that democracy is the best way wever to rule allpeople across different cultural spectrums at all the times? We aren't the godman Arabs just left alone to devlop along their autonmous lines. It took the west centuries of military dictaorships, autocatic monarchs and sectarian wars to construct this god which the U.S uis using to halt the devlopment o Arabs and ensure the well-being and safety of Israel.
Finally, regarding Mr Arabist who is supposedly interested in Arabic culture, I think it is quite strange on his part to come up with this bizarre argument aboout suni-shiite problems so as to justify the rape and destruction of Iraq as well as providing a legitmate cover for the IRANIAN OCCUPATION.
More importantly, why don't you find the issue of the persecution of the Ahwas SHIITE Arabs- on on the Eastern shore of the Arabian gulf , where their identity is being suppressed and they are forbidden from learning in their mother tongue- interesting and worth tackling? As the criminal regime of Qum is is displacing them with Persians. What about the Turkish Azeri resistance to the forced persianisation policy of the criminal Iranian regime.
Oh my.
I suppose Amre has chosen Arabist as the vessel for his verbal diarrhoea after his sexual, viciously misogynistic abusive tirades on Forsoothsayer. It's best to ignore.
@ sP
The word mysogenic can not be applicable on Forsoothsayer who happens to be an attention seeking mental retard, With fixation on the most idol and bizzare topics. Anyway that is not my business sp; her wide set of inferiority complexes induced by reasons I dont feel like discussing, is an issue for you to handle. The reason I banged her on her head was very simple. After our last cyber encounter it became obvious that is there is no mutual respect. However, she crossed the line and made a rude remark about me on a certain blog. So hat was it, the useless retard had to be taught how to MIND HER OWN BUSINESS. Also sp, unless you learn how to be a man and stop hiding behind that pseuo, kindly don't address with yor vulgur comments. Or else, reveal your deplorable identity.
Amre, your comments were caught in the spam system and I don't actually sit in front of my computer all day to unblock them. Hence the delay. Also, please refrain from abusive language towards other commenters or you will banned forever from the comments system.
"Also, please refrain from abusive language towards other commenters or you will banned forever from the comments system"
That is what I call prejudice! What about the abusve language used by SP towards me!?. What about the abusive language used by Jose against me. It seems that since I am setting out of different premises than yours, Commentators have the right to make abusive comments towards me, but never the other way round. Unified parametes please:)
"...attention seeking mental retard, With fixation on the most idol and bizzare topics..." now that gets my attention. Sounds like a girl after my own heart. That blog is my next stop.
My favorite part of that rather odd spastic series of posts is the injunction that SP learn how to be a man.
I totally support the call for unified parameters, however. I'm all about unified parameters. And biodegradable dish soap, high protein biscuits for the poor and spaying and neutering your pet before it figures out how to turn on the computer.
MC, she's actually very clever and funny, but the blog has gone private after our friend above made a series of threats to her (and her family) on it, along with the abuse.
Afraid I can't learn how to be a man. At least not until the government starts funding sex-change operations like Iran does.
Yeah, well, like my Dad used to say before we had him committed "there's no such thing as an unfunny freak." Ok, till they turn up at your door with a roofing hammer in one hand and a piece of Camembert strapped to their head I guess, but right up until then anyway.
This one seems to be in a bad mood. Check out the wacky little note I got: frozentoes.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/42/#comment-24