U.S. To Arm Sunni Arab Groups
By Kevin Zeese
12 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The U.S. military has decided to provide arms to Sunni Arab groups some of who have been suspected of involvement in attacks on Americans. This act of desperation shows the deceit in any claims of success of the “surge.” The DoD would not be taking this risky approach if the U.S. military strategy was working.On June 11th the NY Times reported “With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.”
The Times reports that “American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups.” The U.S. military now plans to provide weapons, arms, money and fuel to these groups.
The Department of Defense seems to be repeating a mistake made too often in U.S. foreign policy – provide arms and ammunition to people who then become enemies – indeed the hall of fame of enemies armed by the U.S. includes the recent additions of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Unless perpetual war is wanted it seems absurd to arm your future enemies.
ABC News quoted an anonymous DoD source explaining the risky choice: “This may blow up in our faces, but it can’t get any worse than its been.” Indeed, it can: U.S. weapons could be used against U.S. troops. The U.S. could be providing weapons that will fuel the civil war – the US has already been funding the Shia’a side. Or, the Iraqi government may find itself at war with large well-armed groups of its citizens. NBC’s concluded his report quoting critics inside the military who fear this could backfire if these Sunni fighters turn against the United States.
A similar strategy, less than a year old in Fallujah is falling apart. DoD is calling the “new” strategy the “Anbar Model” because it was used with tribal chiefs in Anbar for the last nine months. But, on the same day that the plan to arm Sunni’s in Baghdad was announced the Washington Post reported that the Anbar tribal coalition was falling apart.
Why is the Anbar Model failing in Anbar, the Post reports: “Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, 35, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, the largest tribal organization in Anbar, said that the Anbar Salvation Council would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfaction over its cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of the council's most prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleiman called Abu Risha a ‘traitor’ who ‘sells his beliefs, his religion and his people for money.’” Risha is very close to the U.S. military.
The Post goes on to describe the central dilemma: “Should the United States be sponsoring profit-oriented tribal groups that involve themselves in sometimes fragile alliances and that could turn against U.S. troops?” And quotes Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies as asking whether the U.S. should be trying to pay for tribal loyalty, he asks “The question with a group like this always is, does it stay bought?”
Now, the Pentagon plans to expand this policy into turbulent areas in Baghdad. The Times reports “the areas include parts of Baghdad, notably the Sunni stronghold of Amiriya, a district that flanks the highway leading to Baghdad’s international airport; the area south of the capital in Babil province known as the Triangle of Death, site of an ambush in which four American soldiers were killed last month and three others abducted, one of whose bodies was found in the Euphrates; Diyala Province north and east of Baghdad, an area of lush palm groves and orchards which has replaced Anbar as Al Qaeda’s main sanctuary in Iraq; and Salahuddin Province, also north of Baghdad, the home area of Saddam Hussein.”
Why is the Pentagon risking providing arms to potential enemies? Last week the former Iraq war commander, retired General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview the U.S. can forget about winning in Iraq. As Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian statesman said “A man who is afraid will do anything.” And, the Pentagon is afraid.
Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US, and Chair of VotersForPeace.US.
More information:
John F. Burns and Alissa J. Rubin, U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies, New York Times, June 11, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/
middleeast/11iraq.html?ex=1339214400&en=
7c69df022224828e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.Joshua Partlow and John Ward Anderson , Tribal Coalition in Anbar Said to Be Crumbling, U.S.-Backed Group Has Fought Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Washington Post, June 11, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001453_pf.html.Sig Christenson, Sanchez: U.S. can forget about winning in Iraq, Top retired US general says absolutely convinced America has crisis in leadership at this time, Middle East On-Line, June 7, 2007,
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20937.
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top