Fascinating piece of reporting in the NY Times describing how American troops are approaching insurgents in Iraq to aid them in the fight against Al Qaeda:
American and Iraqi officials believe that the conflicts present them with one of the biggest opportunities since the insurgency burst upon Iraq nearly three years ago. They have begun talking with local insurgents, hoping to enlist them to cooperate against Al Qaeda, said Western diplomats, Iraqi officials and an insurgent leader.
It is impossible to say just how far the split extends within the insurgency, which remains a lethal force with a shared goal of driving the Americans out of Iraq. Indeed, the best the Americans can hope for may be a grudging passivity from the Iraqi insurgents when the Americans zero in on Al Qaeda’s forces.
But the split within the insurgency is coinciding with Sunni Arabs’ new desire to participate in Iraq’s political process, and a growing resentment of the militants. Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq’s Shiite majority override Iraqi tribal and nationalist traditions.
Read the whole thing.
Ok, does this remind anybody else of how we worked with Bin Laden to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan?
This story literally wouldn’t make sense to the hordes of wingnuts who have been insisting there is no “insurgency,” only COBRAAAA!… er, Al Qaeda.
The Other Steve
God I can’t find it now. But the other day I was reading a blog from Baghdad out I thought on the WashPo website. Can’t find it now.
But they noted two things…
#1. Insurgents are getting more bold because they think US troops are withdrawing.
#2. As US troops have started to withdraw from Shiite areas, Iraqis have begun to realize that the violence is coming from within Iraq, and not from the US. (They said before when a bomb would go off, they usually saw a US plane overhead and attributed it to that)
Now the Bushie moonbats will say, “See this is proof that we must stay in Iraq and help out these poor brown people who cannot help themselves.”
But the reality is, is No. What the Baghdad bloggers missed, because they are pansy reporters pandering to moonbat common wisdom… is that point #2 also means something else. With the realization that the violence is coming from within Iraq, and the realization that US troops are leaving. That means Iraqis had better step up to fight the insurgents. They realize this, and that’s what they are going to have to do.
It’s kind of like welfare. If the govt is giving you $500 a week, with no strings attached. Are you going to go out and try to find a job? What’s the point? I can sit at home and play Super Nintendo.
But if the govt says, “Starting next month you’ll only get $400 a week, and each month after that we will subtract another $100 until June at which point you’ll get nothing.”
Suddenly you’ve got motivation to go out and get a job.
And that, my friends, is the The Other Steve Welfare Reform answer to Iraq.
It also so happens to be John Murtha’s position, which the moonbats wailed and rended their clothes over.
Um, no — because there’s still no evidence that we actually worked with bin Laden.
If you want to make a partisan issue and play like the CIA didn’t help arm and train bin Ladin and his insurgents, that’s fine with me, I’m not going to make an issue of it. But can we please be adults here and address the real issue: Do we want to be allying and aiding an insurgent group with ends that are not in line with our own, just because we share an enemy?
Your cousin Juan had a translation from an arab paper (Al-Hayat?) earlier that said we’d already made secret agreements with Sunni insurgents (via tribal leaders, I assume) that they could join the police forces in places like Ramadi.
Mr. Z (or whomever it really is), didn’t like that, thus the earlier bombings.
All this AQ stuff is really a side game. They’re guests of the Sunni, and the chances of Osama taking the country over are less than zero.
So, it’s been like a month. How did those elections come out?
It’s almost like the al Queda terrorists’ activities are creating fewer terrorists!
And I thought our presence in Iraq was creating more terrorists. Hmmm…
How to square all the propaganda from the Left…
Recruiting Arab fighters against Al Q would be easier if the US didn’t have such a salient talent for pissing muslims off, whether by backing repressive Arab governments or by financing and arming expansionist Israeli regimes.
That Pew poll six months ago showed the US in single digit approval numbers, even in places like Jordan.
BTW, I don’t see the oleagenous Ms. Hughes charming our way out of this. She is too porcine to appeal to Muilim tastes.
Or the US is using strategery to redefine who is a terrorist… How many ex-Taliban are in the Afghan parliament?
Man oh man…
I am just imagining the shitstorm that would erupt if this was happening under a Democratic administration. Actually talking to the enemy?
So, you’re going to tell a popular lie and expect to get away with it? Blowback’s a great story, but, honey — it’s right up there with CIA cocaine, refuted.
What? That you’re a liar who’s trying to change the subject after getting called on it?
Do we want to be allying and aiding an insurgent group with ends that are not in line with our own, just because we share an enemy?Do we want to aid an isurgent group whose ends don’t completely align with ours because their short-term aims may? Of course we do.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend — but he or she can certainly be useful.