| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Sunni tribes coming over to our side |
| 2007-06-30 |
| Sunni militias that once fought U.S. troops are now seeking to join them, frustrated by al Qaeda's influence in parts of Baghdad, a U.S. commander said on Friday. Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said working with the militias compensates for insufficient Iraqi police presence in some neighborhoods. "Some of them who have previously been fighting us have come to us as we've spoken with them and they want to fight with us," Fil said. "They are tired of al Qaeda and the influence of al Qaeda in their tribes and in their neighborhoods and they want them cleaned out and they want to form an alliance in order to rid themselves of this blight." The decision to work with militias, which had previously been cited by Washington as major forces of instability inside Baghdad, follows efforts in Anbar province to help Sunni Arab sheikhs combat Sunni Islamist al Qaeda. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #54 I have the same doubts as Zenster, as to if the President will embrace a hardline. No offense intended, McZoid, but nowhere near the fan club. Be grateful. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 22:34 |
| #53 1:38 until rollover. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 22:18 |
| #52 Damn, I thought it was Eastern. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 22:15 |
| #51 2:50 until rollover. Rollover, Ship. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 22:13 |
| #50 Right wing opposition to the President only surfaced about a month ago, after he announced his Kosovo surrender. He solidified the opposition by returning to DC's Islamic Center, to give a dhimmi speech. Now he has signalled extreme deference to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is islam's vulgar answer to the UN. Republican Congress members will settle on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran policies, sometime in September, when an objective evaluation of the "surge" will be possible. If the President has chosen to coast to the end of his rule, in a manner inoffensive to the Dems, then he could face internal pressure. I have the same doubts as Zenster, as to if the President will embrace a hardline. However, politics is the art of the possible. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-06-30 21:34 |
| #49 LOL Mike, you knocked me off my game. Did unseen forces send you to do that? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 21:14 |
| #48 I'm with Shipman. At this point, I don't even care who it is, let's just nuke someone. Islam, Mexico, France, Poland, I don't care. Heck, why stop there? We could kill EVERYBODY! |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-06-30 21:07 |
| #47 2:50 until rollover. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 21:06 |
| #46 Whatever, let's kill 'em all. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 21:02 |
| #45 We need allies of convenience across the entire world. After all, there are more than a billion Muslims - open warfare with even a hundredth of that total would be horrendous. Besides, the Islamic world is not monolithic. For example, the Kurds, the Druze and the Turks are all unsympathetic to the al-Qaeda types. In fact, even within countries like Iran and Pakistan many abhor the Islamic radicals - it is just that they are either too outnumbered, too weak or too intimidated to openly stand against them at this time. Our efforts to break the back of the most directly menacing elements could potentially swing the balance in some places (Lebanon comes to mind). Whatever other miscalculations he is guilty of, the president is correct in believing that we must forge alliances with moderate Muslims and strengthen existing ties - the alternative to targeted warfare against the most dangerous fringe and a detente with those we still oppose would ensure that the most apocalyptic predictions of intercivilizational conflict come true. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-06-30 21:00 |
| #44 2:59 till rollover. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:58 |
| #43 And don't appear angry, even if you've shat. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:56 |
| #42 I suggest many bolding local usernames, it'll make friends, also appeal to folks that ain't here, and make a summation without cause. Be friendly and topical. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:53 |
| #41 3 hours and 5 minutes to roll-over, can he do it? Is his wordprosessor strong enought? Let's standby. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:49 |
| #40 3 hours and 14 minutes.... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:41 |
| #39 Bring it in under 4000 words. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:32 |
| #38 .com Ain't here sweetheart. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:31 |
| #37 I don't give a damn about your opinion of Bush. Who won Florida? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:30 |
| #36 Leave Sherry out of this. Your appeal to 3rd parties is boring and obvious. Who won Florida" |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:27 |
| #35 You'd call it what? A police action? I seem to recall wars involving whole cities going up in flames. Sherry's "light footprint" analysis is on the money. I also seem to recall that settling the 2000 presidential election required a Supreme Court decree. While my initial opinion of Bush was unfavorable, the democrats have stooped so low for so long that I now give George due credit for having some sort of backbone. Where it has gone lately is anyone's guess. I don't suppose you remember my personal commitment to publicly protest any impeachment action against Bush if he bombed Iran. Neither do I expect that you'll recall how I've never accused him of lying about Iraqi WMDs or claimed this conflict is all about oil. You probably don't even remember me saying that the better man won the 2004 election. So be it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 20:22 |
| #34 The voice is strong with me tonight Ed, because it's the 1st Annual RantBurg SHARK WEEK! No Moron, no troll will go unchallenged. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:15 |
| #33 Yep, that's the one Ed. Fear it. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 20:12 |
| #32 WTH Ship? Having a conversation again with that voice in your head? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-06-30 20:00 |
| #31 :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-06-30 19:56 |
| #30 Gawd amighty we're gonna see some damn serious cuting and pasting. Altho maybe may trollish pal is hammering hard on his Remmington. LOL! I doubt it. Originality ain't in it. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:55 |
| #29 SHARK WEEK! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:52 |
| #28 If they want to fight with us, we need collateral |
| Posted by: Snereck de Medici6366 2007-06-30 19:50 |
| #27 Yes, I have a long damn memory. I know a troll. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:50 |
| #26 I want to hear it from the horses ass. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:49 |
| #25 I think even the MSM had to |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-06-30 19:47 |
| #24 I gots 0:45 Zulu sweets. Yeah, I'll wait. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:42 |
| #23 SHARK WEEK! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:40 |
| #22 I got all night. Der Tag ist like here baby. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:28 |
| #21 BTW, who won Florida? Gore or BushItler? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:21 |
| #20 We aren't even fighting a real war in Iraq. You'd call it what? A police action? A serial intervention? A neo-con assault against all that is good and lovely? Hell lemme go find 3000 words to fill the bottom part of this post. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-30 19:05 |
| #19 Oppsss - got a little impatient with my computer! Sorry -- |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-06-30 18:23 |
| #18 I read this the other day from a commenter at Bill Roggio -- sounds like a man who knows that human nature is human nature, and it sometimes takes time for changes to happen. The "light footprint" strategy was implemented because everywhere else that a "heavy footprint" was tried from the start (Algeria, Afghanistan, Chechnya), the result was massive numbers of deaths of both occupiers and occupied. Personally, I look at the current situation as part of a continuum: We had to first show the Iraqis that we weren't the French, Soviets, or Russians. That required a relatively light touch. The Iraqis also had to learn for themselves that al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias were savages. Only then would the Iraqis support a much more aggressive approach against their own people. I think much of what happened in Iraq was inevitable, so I don't use terms like "failed strategy." It was all part of the same strategy to help the Iraqis stabilize themselves for the long term, without backsliding into dictatorship. Posted by Tom W. | June 20, 2007 4:04 PM |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-06-30 18:22 |
| #17 I read this the other day from a commenter at Bill Roggio -- sounds like a man who knows that human nature is human nature, and it sometimes takes time for changes to happen. The "light footprint" strategy was implemented because everywhere else that a "heavy footprint" was tried from the start (Algeria, Afghanistan, Chechnya), the result was massive numbers of deaths of both occupiers and occupied. Personally, I look at the current situation as part of a continuum: We had to first show the Iraqis that we weren't the French, Soviets, or Russians. That required a relatively light touch. The Iraqis also had to learn for themselves that al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias were savages. Only then would the Iraqis support a much more aggressive approach against their own people. I think much of what happened in Iraq was inevitable, so I don't use terms like "failed strategy." It was all part of the same strategy to help the Iraqis stabilize themselves for the long term, without backsliding into dictatorship. Posted by Tom W. | June 20, 2007 4:04 PM |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-06-30 18:22 |
| #16 Zenster, there are certain things, which if said aloud in public, functionally are a declaration of war against ALL Muslims everywhere. Understood, tw. It's why you don't see me agitating for nuclear strikes against the MME (Muslim Middle East). As you go on to note, that is pretty much the only way to militarily address the issue on an overall basis. I'd certainly hope that someone might remember all the times I've specifically argued against America's first use of nuclear weapons. A few people around here love to ignore that fact. It's doubtful they even remember my own support for "moderate" Muslims before I lost all hope over their intervention against jihad. The fact that we are unwilling or not prepared to enter into a true World War is why I have recently modified my stance about the presence of Muslims in America. Lack of allied support for a genuine campaign against Islam has obliged me to opt for ridding America of the threat. This is why you now see me posting about the banning of Islam being followed up with deportation or internment. Little else promises our country even a modicum of security. Especially so in light of how our politicians refuse to secure America's borders. Having millions of wannabe jihadis does them little good if the only training they have is whatever probably tainted information they can cobble together from the internet. While this certainly represents an improvement, it is not the cure. As seen in Glasgow, a little better execution and hundreds or thousands might have died. Ineptitude is nothing to rely upon. In keeping with your own chess analogy, you never count upon your opponent making a bad move. For that reason, we are obliged to treat even amateur jihadis as a real threat. The fact remains that even low-level terrorism still degrades the overall quality of life rather dramatically. That is not something I'm prepared to sacrifice just so we can play nice with America's Muslim population. I'd just as soon legislate them out of existence and send them packing. Now, you don't know my brother, but I do and I can assure you that if Petraeus wasn't fighting a real war, my brother would be stateside. Mike N., as I noted above I do think Petraeus is doing a far better job. Iraq is still more of a police action than real war but Petraeus has my full support. Nowhere do you see me calling for withdrawing our troops. We need to keep the conflicts in Muslim lands so that they have a golden opportunity to witness and savor their own Islamic crapulence firsthand. Please be so kind as to extend my personal thanks and encouragement to your brother. He's doing a job that desperately needs to be done and has my admiration for it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 18:06 |
| #15 I hope comment #8 doesn't get lost in all this noise. If anybody knows about trying to work with Arabs toward a common goal, its Israel. Zen, remember what I said about my brother yesterday. I'm gonna add a little to that. He was in Iraq as U.S. Navy. He got demobed in April, but he's still there. He is with the FBI this time. There is an interesting story about how that came to be. I'm gonna throw you the short version. He got asked to stay personally by Petraeus. That's right, Petraeus himself. Now, you don't know my brother, but I do and I can assure you that if Petraeus wasn't fighting a real war, my brother would be stateside. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-06-30 16:49 |
| #14 Zenster, there are certain things, which if said aloud in public, functionally are a declaration of war against ALL Muslims everywhere. We are in no way capable of open warfare against not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Dubhai, Nigeria, South Africa... and the 2 million or so Muslims here in the U.S. However much you and I may disagree on what President Bush knows and believes, he CANNOT make those clarifying statements at this time, nor could he have at any time since 9/11. Not unless we are prepared to glass over the Muslim world while he is still speaking, and have the rest of the world go to war against us as being too dangerous to share the planet with, by next day. I agree that we are finally fighting in Iraq as it should have been done from the beginning. But we also have the advantage of several years of quiet data gathering, so we know who and where to attack for the best effect. The same way the Brits have already picked up three companions of yesterday's wannabe car bombers because they'd been teasing out the connections for a couple of years. More, faster? My preference, but our side is accelerating up the learning/doing curve, and their side is actually falling off it, as their best players are being removed from the chess board. Having millions of wannabe jihadis does them little good if the only training they have is whatever probably tainted information they can cobble together from the internet. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-06-30 16:19 |
| #13 This all reads as extremely more aggressive than we have been since the beginning. Agreed, Sherry, and as you note, taking this to a real war footing is finally getting us some results. I understand how Bush probably wanted to try a gentle approach so as not to alienate the Muslim world with our invasion of Iraq. I just think that there was never really a chance to avoid such a thing in the first place. Muslims want to be alienated. They alienate themselves wherever they go. I'm just hoping we have learned this lesson and no longer tiptoe around in future campaigns. If anything, this surge has proven the only sort of measures that will ever be effective. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 14:44 |
| #12 We aren't even fighting a real war in Iraq. Zenster, maybe true, but from all that I've been reading the last 2 weeks, I think Petraeus has us fighting a war. Certainly lots of killings, captures and caches being found. And numerous high and mid-level AQ being either killed or captured. This all reads as extremely more aggressive than we have been since the beginning. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-06-30 14:32 |
| #11 Zenster, could it be that the president is not ready to commit to war against the entire Muslim world all at once with our limited troops and a recalcitrant Congress? Quite obviously so, tw. We aren't even fighting a real war in Iraq. The point remains that even if we do not declare "war against the entire Muslim world", they have declared war against us. Any reluctance upon our part to recognize this simple fact only costs more lives. Either we fight Islam itself—not individual Muslim majority countries—or resign ourselves to endless terrorist attacks. There are no negotiations, treaties, truces or any other form of rapprochement that Islam can reliably be counted upon to uphold. All that we can be sure of are endless attacks upon the West by Muslims. Either we submit or fight, what is unclear about this? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 14:21 |
| #10 Zenster, could it be that the president is not ready to commit to war against the entire Muslim world all at once with our limited troops and a recalcitrant Congress? Could he possibly even be practicing a bit of taqqiya of his own? Recent polls show that more than 50% of voters will vote against Hillary Clinton. (Sorry t that, Liberalhawk) At this point, as far as I can see (and admittedly on such subjects I see less far into the stone than most) the other democratic candidates are even less electable. Which means it's likely the next president will be either Guiliani or Fred Thompson, both of whom are staunchly for prosecuting the War on Terror, whatever their positions on anything else. (Sorry again, Liberalhawk. But McCain's approval ratings are down around 5% these days.) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-06-30 11:34 |
| #9 Just herd, Besoekermukwalli? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-06-30 10:51 |
| #8 Zenster, from Israel's experience with "Palestinian Police", they'll be doing both simultaneously. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-06-30 10:49 |
| #7 but, but, but... we're still losing... aren't we? |
| Posted by: Harry Reid 2007-06-30 10:38 |
| #6 As with everything about Islam, this is an alliance of convenience. At the earliest possible moment, these same exact people will revert to killing us with a smile on their face. Ranfidels! All of you! We are kind and gentle people who herd goats and follow a religion of peace, and love. There! I have said it! |
| Posted by: Besoekermukwalli 2007-06-30 10:18 |
| #5 Pappy, so long as our own President keeps spewing the Religion of Peace [spit] bullshit, it's incumbent upon others to make sure that nobody buys into such an idiotic notion. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 10:14 |
| #4 Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Panama |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-06-30 09:42 |
| #3 As with everything about Islam, this is an alliance of convenience. At the earliest possible moment, these same exact people will revert to killing us with a smile on their face. Z-boy, you Undiscovered Military Geenyus, you! Just fire off your resume to the National War College and you'll have a job on Monday. No- don't thank me. It's just thinking that nation has the services of such a deep strategic thinker like you is reward enough. At least the canapes will be to die for. the usual 2358 and 35-seconds reply, I suppose? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-06-30 09:41 |
| #2 The Saud terrorist entity indulges subsidization of terrorists, as long as funds come from members of the royal family. The Sunni front of the current war in Iraq is best described as: Saudi Arabia v USA. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-06-30 09:07 |
| #1 Don't let the headline fool you. As with everything about Islam, this is an alliance of convenience. At the earliest possible moment, these same exact people will revert to killing us with a smile on their face. There is no accommodation with Islam. It brooks no mixed allegiances and permits no dilution. Islam is the absolute enemy of humanity and we are totally insane to seek any reconciliation with it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-30 08:55 |