Moqtada al-Sadr is reaching out to the Sunni insurgents, which means that the Iraqi resistance will never end, unless Bush intends to kill every human being in Iraq and possibly, the Middle East.

But, maybe that is his goal?

I would find it hard to understand why a Shi'a country would fund either a Sunni insurgency or a Sunni international terrorist organization.

If this is right, it means Iran might indeed be funding AQI activities in Iraq. At the same time, it also means they aren't funding Sunni insurgent activities. Food for thought.

Iran has been accused of arming just about every militant group in Iraq: the Shi'ite Madhi Army, Badr Corps, and Fadila -- who don't get along -- the Sunni insurgents and Ba'athists -- enemies of the Shia -- and the Islamists and Al Qaeda in Iraq -- pretty much enemies of everybody.

Assuming Iran is arming all these groups then their apparent goal is to have everyone in Iraq kill everyone else, despite allegations by the administration of their cozy relationships to all of these groups...including the ones who see the Iranians as heretics.

"Our organisation began its operations in the first days after the invasion and wherever you find the occupation, you will find us: from Mosul, Baghdad and Samarra to Basra, Hillah and Kirkuk," continues Omary. "Our group has also carried out attacks on British forces in Basra." They are not a Sunni sectarian organisation, he insists: "The military leader of the Brigades is a Kurd. Iraq is for all Iraqis and we only distinguish between those who cooperate with the occupation and those who do not. If my brother cooperates with the occupation, I will kill him - but the innocent must not be touched."

Kurds fighting against occupation forces? Blasphemy! Not all attacks on civilians coming from Al Qaeda? Twice blasphemy! No interference from foreign nations? Thrice blasphemy! The White Office Office of the Curia declares all such opposing views to be anathema!

If the Shia are fighting us and the Sunni are fighting us and Al Qaeda is fighting us, and Al Qaeda and Sunni groups are forming alliances to fight us and Shia and Sunni groups are forming alliances to fight us....

Might one not conclude that we are unwelcome there?

I would find it hard to understand why a Shi'a country would fund either a Sunni insurgency or a Sunni international terrorist organization.

Saudi Arabia is not a Shia country.

[/snark]

the Guardian reminds us today that the major source of attacks on U.S. troops by a wide margin is still the guerrilla war waged by Sunni insurgent groups, not suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in Iraq.

This just goes to show the Surge is working. It's because Bush's Surge has been so effective in decapitating Al-Qaeda that Al-Qaeda has been rendered weak and helpness in the face of the onslaught of the Surge.
But this shouldn't stop us from focusing on Al-Qaeda in Iraq. As Fran Townsend, the Commander-in-Chief's homeland security adviser, pointed out, Bin Laden's deputy commander, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been giving Al-Qaeda in Iraq directions on how to coordinate and attack allied forces. They are even moving forces from Afghanistan to Iraq because they know they're being beaten in Iraq. So we must be vigilant even though we are winning the war in Iraq.

Link

"There's no question that Zawahiri is giving al Qaeda in Iraq direction. We know that there are communications back and forth. We know that they're trying to send fighters from Afghanistan into Iraq. This isn't an invention of our making. We know from the intelligence community that there are. And including the U.S. military who is present in Iraq have told us they continue to see those connections."

No, trex, the more groups that join to fight us is just more proof that we need to be there! If we have created a new Al Qaeda in Iraq, that's proof that Iraq attacked us on 9/11! The more we lose, the greater the victory for us!

Let's remember that we need to cover our troops with honey and stake them to ant hills so they won't get bit at home. (And so College Republicans can continue their schooling uninterrupted.) Or something like that.

Let me get this straight:

The leader of the Sunnis insurgency (who obviously hates the al-Qaida groups) says that they haven't been accepting help from Iraq, by al-Qaida has.

Why does this guy have any credibility? Did he used to room with Ahmed Chalabi or something?

Let's remember that we need to cover our troops with honey and stake them to ant hills so they won't get bit at home. (And so College Republicans can continue their schooling uninterrupted.) Or something like that.

That made me laugh out loud.

"This just goes to show the Surge is working. It's because Bush's Surge has been so effective in decapitating Al-Qaeda that Al-Qaeda has been rendered weak and helpness in the face of the onslaught of the Surge."

al-Qaeda in Iraq has never been a big deal. Never. It's only a big deal *here* because Bush and friends decided to turn it into a big deal in March or April (before, he was surprisingly honest about the makeup of the "insurgency", even saying that al-Qaeda was a small piece of it). Bush Administration: good at PR, bad at everything else. The vast majority of the fighting is done by local, Iraqi insurgents. Most of the foreign fighters are Saudis. Nothing will happen to Saudi Arabia, of course.

45% of foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia.

But we want to attack Iran?

But we can't attack Saudi Arabia - because then, who would manipulate oil prices for the neocons? (as they have done since the 1980's when they defeated the Soviets through oil-market manipulation).

"If this is right, it means Iran might indeed be funding AQI activities in Iraq. At the same time, it also means they aren't funding Sunni insurgent activities. Food for thought."
—Kevin Drum 12:35 PM
------
It is in their interests for us to believe that Iran is funding AQI. These are primarily Sunni Arabs who are smart enough to understand that if we get entangled with Iran (with their "help"), that makes their intended goal of ridding Iraq of the occupation far easier. The true food for thought is at the end of the Guardian article:

"They have already agreed that at the heart of the programme will be a commitment to liberate Iraq from all foreign troops; recognise only those who reject the occupation and its institutions as able to represent Iraq; demand compensation from foreign forces for the devastation they have inflicted on the country; declare all decisions taken by the occupying states and its client government null and void; and reject any change in population distribution. The aim is for the front to join other independent anti-occupation forces from across the country to negotiate with the Americans for their withdrawal. A temporary technocratic government would then manage the country during a transition period until free elections could be held for a new independent government. Even Saddam's revamped Ba'ath party - which now plays what is regarded as a reduced role in the resistance - is an enthusiast for fully competitive elections.

But what if the US doesn't start to withdraw from Iraq next year, as the resistance groups expect, or merely withdraws to the huge military bases it has built around Iraq to intervene as and when it sees fit? "As long as foreign forces remain in Iraq," Omary replies, "the Iraqi government will not be independent. And armed resistance will continue."

why does marc lynch think there is any chance that "american officials" (at least, those who count) are going to be realistic about anything?

Truth be know the most likely supports of Sunni resistance are their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia. The Salafi Jihadis (aka Al-Qaeda in Iraq- formed under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and mostly made of foreigners but now it seems to have gone native) are after all admires of the real al-Qaeda (a rather Saudi organization) and mortal enemies of the Shiites and the Iranians. That is why they are always blowing up Shiite shrines and why they threaten Iranians. They are just a small faction among the Sunni groups which also include Arab tribal groups, urban nationalists and neo-Baath military men.

Marc Lynch’s comments are a bit confusing because the Islamic State of Iraq is the current government under the SCIRI and the Shiite governing coalition. This is the southern Iraqi government agreed upon with the Kurds. It is best to think of the new Iraq, which only officially includes the Kurds, as a Shiite dominated state with similar governing principles, meaning the rule of Islamic law, as Iran. Among the Sunnis only the neo-Baathist may be ideologically opposed to the Sunni revivalist known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Sunnis would likely be defeat in an all out civil war with the majority Shiites. It is hard to imagine any other position from which to negotiate- they don't have the oil and they don't have the force- other than the threat to turmoil.

These insurgent groups have long stayed underground, communicating mainly through internet postings,

My God! They're just like the warbloggers!

Stefan: "My God! They're just like the warbloggers!"

Actually, both groups are coordinated by Bill Kristol. That's why he can be so confidant.

I agree bellemurgio.
In fact, the only 'advantage' that the Sunnis might possibly have is Saudi support. (and the neo-Baathists' 'advantage', if there is one, is that they were probably the ones who looted the arms depots, because they were the ones who had the keys and the locations when we invaded. If I was a medium-to-high grade officer, and I knew that my country was going to be invaded, and that we weren't planning on fighting back, I would stock up for my own personal survival for the long-term occupation, and my first stop would be every arms and supply depot I knew about - and I would make damn sure I got there before anyone else did, so I could get the choicest stuff. If nothing else, I could sell it on the black market later. This is very likely what happened in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, and it's very likely that it's former party members and army officers who have access to some heavy weaponry from the Saddam-era Iraqi army.

I really hope that American officials don't really believe their own propaganda and are paying attention to the really significant developments on the Sunni side

Haaaaaahahhhaha!! Now that's funny.

bellumregio, I thought it worth noting that your knowledgeable post describing the complex pedigree of Iraqi resistance groups is entirely beyond the ability of George W. Bush and many of his followers to understand.

And that is one of the many reasons we are so fucked.

If you ever find a way to boil it down to something as simple as "they hate us for our freedoms" we may have a chance.

Until then: still fucked.

Blue Girl, Red State said:
Saudi Arabia is not a Shia country.

I don't remember which story on the NIE it was now, but administration flacks were saying it was certain that most foreign fighters Iraq were coming from Iran. But they were completely clueless about the source of all the money now coming into al Qaida in Iraq. They had no idea where to start looking for the source. Nope.

They vow to continue armed struggle until the US forces leave, and to stop the violence when they do.

Does anyone believe that they will stop the violence once the Americans leave?

Iran has been accused of arming just about every militant group in Iraq: the Shi'ite Madhi Army, Badr Corps, and Fadila -- who don't get along -- the Sunni insurgents and Ba'athists -- enemies of the Shia -- and the Islamists and Al Qaeda in Iraq -- pretty much enemies of everybody.

So Iran is just like us, then, because we've also been arming and funding just about all of these groups in turn.

Does anyone believe that they will stop the violence once the Americans leave?

They will stop the violence against Americans once the Americans leave, that one thing is for sure, and that is only thing in Iraq that is under our control.

Empirically it has been shown that attempting to rein in the violence of every group against the other is impossible.

Next.

Does anyone believe that they will stop the violence once the Americans leave?

How typically dishonest of Marler to conflate the anti-US insurgency with those factions taking advantage of the chaos Marler's heroes created in iraq -- with marler cheering on every bloodstained day -- to forment their own civil war. The latter probably won't stop, no -- and it'll be all Bush's fault, no matter how lout Marler screams "Dolchstoss!" (Practicing in the mirror every day, are we, Marler?) Those forces seeking to end the US occupation -- if the US leaves, who would they shoot at then?

If BushCo are so concerned about Iran becoming too powerful or meddling too much in Iraq, then gee, I wonder why they tried to install as Iraq's PM, Ahmed Chalabi, an Iranian Spy? (and convicted embezzler!).

Yeah, bringing Chalabi onto the Iraq war team was a clear signal to me about the intentions of this crew.

Birds of a feather FRAUD together.

The Guardian reminds us today that the major source of attacks on U.S. troops — by a wide margin — is still the guerrilla war waged by Sunni insurgent groups, not suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in Iraq.

AQI is a local Sunni group fighting against the Iraqi government, and therefore, its suicide attacks are part of the "guerrilla war waged by Sunni insurgent groups", not something separate from it.

If this is right, it means Iran might indeed be funding AQI activities in Iraq. At the same time, it also means they aren't funding Sunni insurgent activities.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is self-contradictory to claim that Iran is "funding AQI activities in Iraq" and that Iran is not "funding Sunni insurgent activities."

OTOH, since there have been numerous reports that the US is funding and supporting al-Qaeda-linked factions fighting against Iran, what seems most clear is that, in the proxy war between the US and Iran that is emerging, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, franchises, and hangers-on are positioned to be the big winners.

These moves by the major insurgency factions over the last several months don't fit well within the preferred American narrative.

More evidence that American "policy" in Iraq is not about dealing with the situation as it exists there but rather with using Iraq as a pretext to advance domestic political agendas here.

Does anyone believe that they will stop the violence once the Americans leave?

No - most likely it will step up and intensify, until the Shiites gain more complete control. What I would hate to see happen is for Turkey to invade Kurdistan - but I rate that as unlikely.

Eventually, I think all the minorities will be chased out, maybe to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. and a low-level conflict will continue. Perhaps, if it's shown that the Iraqi govt. is "officially" carrying out ethnic cleansing, the US could carry out sanctions against them (like against the Serbs) - that's why we'd want redeployment, not complete withdrawl, so we could at least stage airstrikes.

But the thing is, this violence is going to play out, either over a short period, or over a long period. The tipping point was reached a long time ago, and there's no stopping it short of installing a reliable police force of a half-million (or more) troops (even Petraeus agrees on that number, read his damn book!). Which we don't have. The question is; how much more American blood and treasure are we going to waste while we sit there, helplessly watching, with half-assed force levels?

I mean, I understand the "Pottery Barn" rule, I really do. And I completely feel for the Iraqis, and especially the Sunnis, who are being ethnically cleansed, already, (and have been, for the past 3 years).

But the bottom line is: unless we're going to commit enough troops to actually stop the violence, then we're not going to stop the violence. The only other rational course of action is to get the fuck out before we bankrupt ourselves in the process, and become a failed state run by christianist mullahs and oil barons ourselves. (which we're rapidly on the road to becoming anyway).

This is a matter of our own survival as a nation here.

Does anyone believe that they will stop the violence once the Americans leave?

I'm pretty confident the violence against the American forces in Iraq will stop once we no longer have American forces in Iraq.

Or, to put it another way, how many combat troops were we losing in Iraq prior to March 2003 when we attacked them?

I'm pretty confident the violence against the American forces in Iraq will stop once we no longer have American forces in Iraq.

I think the pertinent (or impertinent) question is, does anyone think Marler will stop making dishonest arguments once the americans leave?

In other news:
Bush eliminates the 5th Amendment via Executive Order. (I assume this does not apply to Dick Cheney?)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Kevin: "If this is right, it means Iran might indeed be funding AQI activities in Iraq. At the same time, it also means they aren't funding Sunni insurgent activities. Food for thought."

Thanks to Vice President Dick "Last Throes" Cheney and his not-so-trusty sidekick, the convicted felon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- whose collective malevolent revelations of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's covert status and the agency's Brewster Jennings operation quite obviously crippled our intelligence-gathering capabilities in the region -- we'll probably never really know, and thus we can do little more than offer this sort of speculation.

I was listening to Prime Minister's Questions not long ago, just before Blair left office. Mr. Blair grasps the nature of struggle in Iraq and the MPs are well versed. They understand the factions and the risks of war. They understand power and proportion. And they discuss it frankly, with respect and patriotism in Parliament.

By comparison American politicians are children. When they speak you know you are in the presence of characters from Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad". They are starry-eyed idealists and movers on the make. If only these children were not so malicious in their games and in possession of such dangerous tools.

Their hostility to the Islamic State of Iraq/al-Qaeda does not translate into support for the United States or the current Iraqi government. They vow to continue armed struggle until the US forces leave...

They?

Oh... you mean soldiers from the disbanded Iraq Army?

Any chance we can hang from a lamppost the American that gave the order to disband that army?

Note:

Stupidest decision ever.
Had to have been Bush who made it.
I guarantee it.

...They understand the factions and the risks of war. They understand power and proportion. And they discuss it frankly, with respect and patriotism in Parliament....
By comparison American politicians are children. ...
Posted by: bellumregio on July 19, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why that is so. I really do.

Iraq was ruled by brutality and an iron hand before we arrived.
Iraq will be ruled by brutality and an iron hand after we leave.
There is no logical formulation or acceptable political arrangement that would allow for the U.S. and the future ruling force, emphasize ‘force’, to combine in the required brutality to bring Iraq under control.
If the Shiites can’t dominate Iraq on their own, then let the Sunnis crack heads and reestablish their police state.
Technically, geopolitically, we would be better off.

per bellumreggio:Marc Lynch’s comments are a bit confusing because the Islamic State of Iraq is the current government under the SCIRI and the Shiite governing coalition.
No, the national government is the Republic of Iraq. It is an Islamic state but AQ is most referred to as the ISI.
they don't have the oil
Well, you don't know that. Even the petroleum engineers don't know that because only about 10% of the country has been mapped. See this article which would differ with your statement.
There are also articles, including by Marc Lynch, which indicate that there is an Iraqi identification as Iraqis. If it were just Shi'a, and Iran=Iraq because they're both predominantly Shi'a, how to explain the 8 years of war where the bulk of the ground-pounders in the Iraqi Army were Shi'a?

Kenji: Actually, both groups are coordinated by Bill Kristol. That's why he can be so confidant.

Confidant? I'd like to be Kristol Meth's confidant. I'd really like to know what goes through that guy's head when he lies down at night.

bellumregio: By comparison American politicians are children. When they speak you know you are in the presence of characters from Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad". They are starry-eyed idealists and movers on the make. If only these children were not so malicious in their games and in possession of such dangerous tools.

Indeed. Dead on and deadly in its eloquence.

It is about time the insurgents united and went public. Now they are more qualified to rule and we can go home soon.

Much of the leadership of the Shiite government was in exile in Iran in the 1980's. Parties like the SCIRI got their start there and their paramilitary arm, the Badr Corps, was trained by the Revolutionary Guard. (I should note they are not puppets of the Iranians) Certainly there are many Iraqis who want a unified country (al-Sadr for one) but the deal between the Kurds and Shiites seems like the federal state will be very weak indeed. It does not seem likely that there will be a national oil law at all. Al Sadr's bloc returned to Parliament to vote down the law and nearly all factions are now showing dislike for some aspect of it. The new "Moderate Bloc", even if it can get the votes, will be violently opposed by other elements, least of all al-Sadr and the oil unions, who see the oil law as nothing more than a sell out to the Americans. But the Americans really want the vote by May so we will see.

Kurdistan is now a nation on its way to getting a state. They will make their own deals. The question is what will happen to the rest of Iraq.

Recently a number of foreign companies signed oil exploration deals with the Iraqis. One of the regions of interest is a Sunni area as the Time article points out. But what you may have in the future, and what you can believe from a Colorado energy firm, is usually not part of present negotiations in Iraq.

bellumregio: By comparison American politicians are children. When they speak you know you are in the presence of characters from Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad". They are starry-eyed idealists and movers on the make. If only these children were not so malicious in their games and in possession of such dangerous tools.

I'd say the Duke and the Dauphin from "Huckleberry Finn" would be the better fictional forebears for our current crop of crooks, charlatans, and madmen posing as statesmen.

Recently a number of foreign companies signed oil exploration deals with the Iraqis.

On the other hand, I'm seeing a ton of money pouring out of Iraq's neighbors. The wealthy Arabs have become convinced the US has lost and they're scared, so they're trying to move assets overseas so they can bolt if need be.

If you subscribe to the belief that the market always knows, then the market over there is telling us that we're fucked.

If it were just Shi'a, and Iran=Iraq because they're both predominantly Shi'a, how to explain the 8 years of war where the bulk of the ground-pounders in the Iraqi Army were Shi'a?

In a word?

Conscription.

And we're not talking about the draft board that Arlo Guthrie had to deal with. I mean, what part of "Saddam was a genocidal dictator" is unclear?

Kevin -
To this day, I still have not seen word one about what happened to the Iraqi army personnel that was disbanded, and any ties to the Sunni insurgency. (To me that is a wrong term, intrinsically, since an insurgent is a rebel against an established power structure, and no such internal structure existed. Conducting a guerilla war against OCCUPYING force does not make them insurgents. If the same situation existed here, they would be called patriots. But my point is that the planners and organizers and structure of the "insurgency" is almost certainly remnants from Saddam's Republican guard and other military leaders. And many of the troops almost certainly are, too.

SteveG - I believe it was the Christian Science Monitor that reported in depth about the officers of the disbanded army fighting the US military, and now they are being armed by the US military. I have a lot of stuff about it here Type "clusterfuck" in the blog's search bar.

Kevin, the real untold story out of Iraq, which the mainstream media refuses to cover, is that Bush neocon leftovers from the Iran-Contra scandal are using stolen Iraqi reconstruction money to arm jihadists.

Well now - as luck would have it I have a one-size-fits-all post that deals with arming Sunni guerrilla fighters and the point Thersites made on another thread about the right-wing crew-cuts-with-beer-guts being the ones who derided the Vietnam veterans.

Conscription? That gets them into the army, doesn't mean that millions of armed men can't or won't strike back. They seem to be causing us no end of grief,don't they. You also could have seen that in Viet-nam by the number of units which refused combat (hundreds of incidents) or fragging, for that matter. The descriptions of the horrific battles between Iran/Iraq don't come close to being explained by conscription alone.

If it were just Shi'a, and Iran=Iraq because they're both predominantly Shi'a, how to explain the 8 years of war where the bulk of the ground-pounders in the Iraqi Army were Shi'a?

Not just conscription. Iraqis are Arabs and Iranians are not. They are Persians, and they have been at odds since...forever.

i am waiting for the day when all the iraqi patriots join up, submerge their religious animosities, and surround the green zone with mortars, and launch a day long bombardment of the iraqi invaders.

until that happens, the us congress, the us electorate, will never recognize how fiercely our invaders are hated.

"The Guardian reminds us today that the major source of attacks on U.S. troops — by a wide margin — is still the guerrilla war waged by Sunni insurgent groups, not suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Michael Yon has reported a ton on the recent relationship between the 1920 Brigades and the US military in Diyala. Worth checking out.

Also, even though the "mainstream" Sunni insurgents are the "main source of attacks on US troops", it's still fair to say that they're not the main obstacle to our withdrawal. AQI is. It's hard to imagine peace and domestic tranquility when carbombs are going off in Baghdad daily, killing hundreds of civilians. It fuels the civil war more than the 1920 Brigades or similar groups do.