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
Comment
Policy
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.