Anbar

by hilzoy

Marc Lynch, writing in TAP, asks a very good question:

"Much of the conventional wisdom about the Sunni areas now seems to come from the impressions formed by politicians and journalists on stage-managed visits to Iraq, or by carefully crafted press interviews with "former insurgents" hand-picked by American military handlers. But we don't need such a mediated view. Leaders of the major Iraqi Sunni groups actually speak quite often and quite candidly to their own people, though: in open letters, in official statements posted on internet forums, in the Arab and Iraqi press, and in statements released on al-Jazeera and other satellite television stations. What they say in such statements, in Arabic, when addressing their own constituencies, might be considered a more reliable guide to their strategy and thinking. So what are the major Iraqi Sunni leaders saying?"

Luckily, unlike me, Marc Lynch speaks Arabic, and so can answer this question:

"In their literature and public rhetoric, the Sunni insurgency has already defeated the American occupation -- which is why the Americans stopped fighting them and came to them for help in fighting al-Qaeda. One discovers virtually nothing in this literature of the American conceit that our forces wore them out or forced them to come to the table. During his meeting with President Bush in Anbar last week, Abu Risha, reportedly joked that his people had achieved in four months what the American military could not achieve in four years. It was one of the few claims made by Abu Risha with which most Iraqi Sunnis would agree, and one which should probably have infuriated more Americans than it seems to have."

Personally, I would have given a lot to see Bush's face when Abu Risha said that. To continue:

"Most of these statements are already looking past the question of al-Qaeda, and are instead in preparation for the aftermath of an American withdrawal. The overwhelming theme of recent Sunni discourse is the need to achieve political unity to prepare for a post-occupation Iraq. While Americans celebrate their cordial relations with certain tribal shaykhs, the insurgency's leaders publicly fumed that the fruits of their victory might be snatched by undeserving interlopers. The widely disseminated pictures of President Bush shaking hands with Sattar Abu Risha, the epitome of such illegitimate bon vivantes, were likely his death warrant.

Meanwhile, certain tribes worry that the groundwork is being laid for the domination of Sunni politics by other tribes, and that this is in fact the American plan -- to leave behind a divided, suspicious, and compromised array of tribes which will be unable to act politically. An important recent open letter from the highly influential Association of Muslim Scholars powerfully invoked the experience of the Afghan jihad, which collapsed upon itself after defeating the Soviet Union. The famously fractious insurgency has been trying hard to put forward a public political front to fill this perceived void, though at this point the various projects still seem to exist mostly on paper.

Partition, soft or hard, has far fewer fans in Anbar than in Washington. Most Sunnis continue to support a unified Iraqi state, and have exaggerated expectations about the role they should play in such a state. A recent letter from the "Amir" of the Islamic Army of Iraq claimed that Sunnis made up 60 percent of the population of Iraq, and few Sunnis seem ready to accept the status of "tolerated minority" within a Shia-dominated state. The Maliki government is almost universally denounced as sectarian, culpable for sectarian cleansing, and an Iranian puppet.

There is absolutely nothing in current Sunni discourse to suggest that any sort of "bottom up reconciliation" with the Shia is taking place or that the tactical cooperation with American forces against al-Qaeda is producing any kind of meaningful integration into the Iraqi state. Far more common is the need to prepare for future conflict with the Shia and, increasingly, the Kurds (see Kirkuk and Mosul). Resentment over the sectarian 'cleansing' of Baghdad runs exceptionally high, and few Sunnis seem prepared to accept any political settlement which does not include their return to Baghdad -- something that the Shia militias (which continue to dominate the Iraqi Police) seem rather unlikely to accept."

A couple of days ago, the estimable Eric Martin said that I gave too much credence to two ideas: first, that Sunnis are interested in "bottom-up reconciliation", and second, that even if they were, the Shi'a government would allow it. He was right: I didn't mean the post to come out quite that way, but it did. As far as I can tell, some Sunnis have decided that it's better to use our forces to get rid of al Qaeda in Iraq, and to get more money and training, the better to prepare for the coming all-out civil war. Others are still fighting us: "it's the Sunni insurgency, primarily, that's responsible for the approximately 93 soldiers killed on average in Iraq each month this year."

If this is true, then what's going on is not "progress" at all; it's maneuvering for position in preparation for a civil war. It has had one good effect: speeding the process of clearing out al Qaeda in Iraq. That might well have happened in any case: al Qaeda in Iraq does not seem to have a knack for making itself loved. Still, it's a good thing, though it came at a heavy price. But to see the effects of the surge in Anbar as anything more than that -- specifically, to see them as having anything to do with national reconciliation -- is, I think, a mistake.

And apart from that, what real progress is there?

Comments

[Ted]

It's bought Bush another six, maybe twelve months towards dumping the whole mess on his successor. That's progress as far as he's concerned.

[DaveC]

It has had one good effect: speeding the process of clearing out al Qaeda in Iraq.

But Al Qaeda really is who we are fighting now.

I know it is awful, but the enemy is Al Qaeda.

Previously it the Baathists, plus AQI. I think Al Sadr has some kind of truce now, there was that Helsinki accord over labor day, Al Douri's out of the mix, the secular Sunni party is back in Parliament, etc.

Let's see how this works out over the next 6 months.

[hilzoy]

DaveC: if true, that's unfortunate, as they are not the only ones fighting us.

[DaveC]

Off Topic

hilzoy, Do you know how MA Niazi (The Nation PK) is doing? I just found out that he had a stroke back in May. Were you in Lahore? What is the deal with the Mayo Clinic there?

[Hartmut]

They were right about the sheik signing his own death warrant by shaking hands with Bush.
He was killed yesterday by a bomb.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq>link

[cleek]

i heard on NPR a few days back that one of the reasons the Sunnis are fighting AQI now is that AQI had started cutting in on the Sunni's oil smuggling profits.

progress!

[john miller]

DaveC, please do not do what Bush does and equate AQI and AQ. They are not the same and have tenuous connections at best.

Getting rid of AQI, though important, will have absolutely no effect on AQ.

[J Thomas]

Let's see how this works out over the next 6 months.

Famous last words.

[Dantheman]

"Let's see how this works out over the next 6 months.

Famous last words."

If only they were. Far more likely is that they will repeated every 6 months.

[Ugh]

Let's see how this works out over the next 6 months.

I guess that that's pretty much what we're stuck with as I doubt the collective readership of this blog, even if super motivated, could do anything to change it.

So, six more months of maiming, carnage, death and horror for the troops and Iraqis until we get another report from the good general saying "golly, we could use another six months..."

[cleek's naughty cat]

someday, this will be over.

i wonder how long after that until some chickenhawk eggheads get together and decide the US needs to do a little Regime Change™, for the good of the world - but this time we'll do it right, not like the Bush Wars of distant memory - ?

[cleek]

i thought i told that cat not to use the computer anymore...

[Catsy]

I know it is awful, but the enemy is Al Qaeda.

If you really believed that, you'd be in favor of getting out of Iraq so that we can get back to fighting Al Qaeda. As pointed out above, AQI is not AQ, and the defeat of AQI will have no meaningful effect on the people who actually attacked us and who actually pose any kind of a threat to this country. To believe otherwise is to be so ignorant of the different factions in Iraq and the differences between AQI and AQ as to render one's opinion on the subject meaningless.

I know you're still trying to clap harder for Bush's war, but I would appreciate it if you'd take the time to think about the big picture once in while in between the clapping.

[KCinDC]

Cleek (or the cat), we'll be lucky if the chickenhawk eggheads wait until this is over before starting the next war. At this point I think the major decision they're working on is whether to attack just Iran or go for Iran and Syria at the same time.

[Gary Farber]

"A couple of days ago, the estimable Eric Martin said that I gave too much credence to two ideas: first, that Sunnis are interested in "bottom-up reconciliation", and second, that even if they were, the Shi'a government would allow it. He was right: I didn't mean the post to come out quite that way, but it did."

Wouldn't allow it, you meant, yes?

[J Thomas]

"Let's see how this works out over the next 6 months.

Famous last words."

If only they were. Far more likely is that they will repeated every 6 months.

Every 6 months until the last time.

[Gary Farber]

"Wouldn't allow it, you meant, yes?"

Whoops, hadn't had my coffee yet. "...gave too much credence to...."

Never mind.

[russell]

i wonder how long after that until some chickenhawk eggheads get together and decide the US needs to do a little Regime Change™, for the good of the world

Probably 15-20 years. Long enough for the neo-con junior league -- folks like Trevino, Domenech, et al -- to work their way up through the think tank ranks and wrangle positions where they can make policy.

Don't worry, they're working on it right now.

Thanks -

[Jake - but not the one]

It isn't the thinktanks that worry me - it's the career employees of the defense and intelligence agencies. Therein lies the resurgence of the neocons (really, warmongers) and the Republican party.

What reading I have done leads me to the conclusion that the CIA has been a cancerous repository of evil since it's very beginnings. If Truman doesn't get a black eye for allowing it to turn into the festering cesspool it is, while on HIS watch, then there is no justice and we can expect GWB to be lionized in the not too distant future.

Jake

[KCinDC]

But Jake, the Bushites have been telling us for years that the CIA is a bunch of patchouli-scented liberal peaceniks who just wanted to sing "Kumbaya" with Saddam Hussein and so undermined the rush to war at every turn.