Am I first? Recommended reading:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62827/

The "Anbar Awakening" has — so far — been a considerable success for the U.S. mission in Iraq.

Its certainly been spun into a PR success for the advocates of maintaining a US military mission in Iraq, but in what concrete way has it made the attainment of the ultimate objectives claimed for the US mission in Iraq more likely?

Over the past year, as Sunni tribes in Anbar have increasingly turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, violence in the province has dropped dramatically.

The fact that the Sunni tribes in Anbar determined that al-Qaeda in Iraq was a hindrance (for PR reasons, attracting the warth of the US, and other reasons) more than a help in their struggle against their real enemies (to wit, the Shi'ite-led government) and that the US has rewarded this realization with arms and money for the groups that were, in many cases, formerly attacking US troops and forces loyal to the Iraqi government has certainly reduced violence in the region.

OTOH, that's not the same thing as advancing the US mission.

Next step: recreating that success in the capital.

That's not even a coherent idea. It worked in Anbar, such as it did, because Anbar is a majority Sunni region whose Sunni population turned on al-Qaeda outsiders because, essentially, they'd already beaten everyone else besides them and the United States and didn't need the outsiders, or the trouble they brought from the US, anymore.

The Sunni position in Baghdad is rather different.

But although the Shiite majority has mostly limited itself to periodic grumbling about the tribal strategy as long as it was limited to Sunni provinces

Uh, actually, the government, including Maliki, have harshly condemned the US policy of arming groups there, especially since some of those groups have been (and appear to remain) armed opponents of the Iraqi government. This has not been "periodic grumbling", its been fairly strenuous objection.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni: "I can't understand the fears. Frankly, it's people talking nonsense, that these tribes might turn into militiamen the next day and be a threat to the Shias and attack whomever."

Roger that.

"Roger that"!? What, its crazy to think that these armed groups that were fighting the US and Iraqi security forces, sometimes in concert with al-Qaeda in Iraq, before they turned on al-Qaeda in Iraq (and were subsequently armed and equipped by the U.S.), and which have neither loyalty, nor attachment, nor any command relationship to the Iraqi government, might at some time in the future turn those arms and resources the US has provided them against the Iraqi government?

I think not.

From article I noted above:

KH: "Given that your films and journalism are critical of the war in Iraq, why did the U.S. Army let you embed?

RR: Anbar is their big success story. They don't think that anyone who comes up there is going to go to the refugee camps and see the other side of it, or going to speak enough Arabic, which David Enders and Hiba Dawood do, to figure out what's going on. I think they were desperate to get people up there. It was all good news to them. And it was truly amazing. We were able to walk in the street and take our flack jackets off in a neighborhood, which just six months ago had been one of the most dangerous places in the country, where tanks couldn't even go. And that image is the image they wanted to circulate. Of course that's only possible because the people who were shooting at them six months ago are now on the payroll.

KH: How has the media been picking up your story?

RR: It's on Al Jazeera English, which 65 million households see. And internationally, reports have picked up on the story from there. But in the States, it's only been picked up by outlets like Democracy Now! and the Pacifica stations. There's a lot of noise now, everyone's talking. There are so many lies in Petraeus' report that it's hard to focus on just one.

KH: When they do discuss Iraq, the U.S. media, politicians, Americans in general are more focused on what's going to have a direct impact on U.S. soldiers than on Iraqis. Do you think they see this as their issue, their problem? Something that is irrelevant, or eclipsed by the fact that fewer American soldiers are shot?

RR: If Americans ever want their soldiers to leave, then they have to deal with this civil war that we are stoking. Short-term gains for the American army are obvious; there will be fewer attacks on Americans in the short run. But the Shia refugees are not able to return to their homes and as long as you have these misery belts with millions of people living in cinder block houses with no services, no water, you're going to have a continual engine that drives violence, and you're just making the problem more intractable in the long run."

From alternet

I agree with cmdicely's conclusion, although not all his reasoning. I doubt that the Anbar model can be replicated in a mixed area like Baghdad.

Wow. Kevin often is honest and reasonable on other subjects, but this is the first time I remember him being honest, reasonable and even unbiased on Iraq. We must really be on the verge of success.

"The success or failure of this initiative will tell us most of what we need to know about whether our continued presence in Iraq has any chance of being productive."

Our presence in Iraq stopped being productive the second looting started and has never changed course.

"Frankly, it's people talking nonsense, that these tribes might turn into militiamen the next day and be a threat to the Shias and attack whomever."

I don't understand why this is nonsense. It seems as though this has been the big concern and the reality for several years now.

Ah Kevin,

The Sunni are using us, the Shia are using us and we in turn are using them individually and collectively (tho’ not too well).

Thinking anything long term can come of this is like spending a night in a bath house engaged in serial episodes of meth induced sex and leave thinking you just met the love of your life.

Wake up and smell the poppers.

It would be interesting to see some devotee of Tufte do a map of the distribution of Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq and around the region. Stats don't do the problem justice: Iran is about 90% Shi'ite, Iraq about 65% (I think), Saudi Arabia maybe 15%, Kuwait about a third and Lebanon close to half.

If this was a racial or ethnic, rather than a religious distinction, it'd be easier for Americans to get an intellectual grip on it: most of Saudi Arabia's oil is literally under its Shi'ite minority in places like Qatif, Safya and Sayha.

Sunnis are actually a minority in the parts of Saudi Arabia where the oil is.

I suppose the analogy would be as if the old South African apartheid states were on top of all the diamond mines. Guess which side we're on?

The leader of Saudi Arabia's Shi'ites is named Hassan al Saffar: HE would be a good get for an interview about the future of Iraq.

With all this Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, al-Qaeda, Iraians etc., it sure makes me long for the good of days of Vietnam when we could just kill people without all this arguing.

[/trolling]

*

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

Dr. Patraeus knew all about the mixture of Sunni and Shite in Iraq having spent two years there before he designed the surge.

You really have drunk the kool-aid! Kagan is the armchair general behind the surge! You boot-licking moron. And your man-crush is still creepy. In fact, it is getting creepier by the minite.

The success or failure of this initiative will tell us most of what we need to know about whether our continued presence in Iraq has any chance of being productive.
This has been said about everything that has happened in Iraq since the start of the war. Nothing has made a positive difference. The Democrats in Congress and those running for president are also mostly afraid to do anything that would make any meaningful change in direction. Things are going to get worse.

Succeed in getting rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and you still have a massive clusterf*** in which over 4 million people are displaced, and more than half a million dead, with much of the infrastructure in ruins. And when Al Qaeda is gone, the guns will be turned on the US, and other factions...

Kevin, I have no idea how you can construe that direction as leading to success in any meaningful sense of the word.

[/trolling]

My one sentence analysis would be that up until now the US military has learned all its lessons from Israel's suppression of the Palestinians and we have been treating the Iraqis the same way or worse.

That'll get us to a solution soon, right?

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

That would be Lt. Col. John Nagl, who wrote LLearning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam. (He is also an avid student of T.E. Lawrence's writings.)

That you invoke his name, what he has said, and what he has written, by citing "a specific special forces task force has been profitably dedicated to the extermination of their senior leadership" suggests that you haven't a clue what this is really about.

Hint: "The military action is secondary to the political one, its primary purpose being to afford the political power enough freedom to work safely with the population.."

The "Anbar Awakening" has — so far — been a considerable success for the U.S. mission in Iraq. Over the past year, as Sunni tribes in Anbar have increasingly turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, violence in the province has dropped dramatically.

Next step: recreating that success in the capital.

Any chance that the rest of Iraq isn't just like Anbar in such a way that the same result can't be made to happen in the same way?

Maybe Anbar is just a fluke. Maybe it can't be done anywhere else. That is, maybe it was the Anbarese who made it happen (not us), and if it's going to happen anywhere else it's going to depend on the people in those other place all feeling the same type of effects that the people in Anbar did (not necessarily repeatable in those places at all) to get the same consequences.

That is, maybe it was the Anbarese who made it happen (not us), and if it's going to happen anywhere else it's going to depend on the people in those other place all feeling the same type of effects that the people in Anbar did (not necessarily repeatable in those places at all) to get the same consequences.

??? Do you pretend to have a clue in order to make people roll their eyes?

Anbarese???

What the fuck?

rdw makes more sense and his shit gets deleted the moment he posts it.

What's the big deal? To the Sunnis, al-Queda was the greater of two evils, and we're the lessor. I saw a poll the other day that 93% of Sunnis think killing U.S. troops is justified. Anybody who think colonialism is going to be a fresh success under Bush may be ignoring history.

The "Anbar Awakening" has — so far — been a considerable success for the U.S. mission in Iraq. Over the past year, as Sunni tribes in Anbar have increasingly turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, violence in the province has dropped dramatically.

How is it a success when all we did was buy off the Sunni tribesmen with money and guns? Once they chase al Qaeda into another region, what's to stop them from going back to their practice of attacking US troops? AQI was responsible for less than 10% of all attacks but was in 100% of the dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by people who continue to lie about Iraq. Repeating their talking points over and over again is insane.

Why can't people see that this strategy, while giving us a short term break from about 5% of the total attacks in Iraq conducted by AQI, means nothing in terms of actually solving the problem? It's a short term fix of the worst kind--building up a former enemy so that enemy can go back to attacking us.

The emphasis on AQI was just a marketing ploy--nothing more. The real issue is the civil war in Iraq. The so-called success in Anbar is designed to get people to forget that Baghdad and the surrounding areas continue to face ethnic cleansing, there is little or no improvement in the infrastructure in Iraq, and the British are pulling out. Iraq faces a cholera pandemic right now--you'll never hear about that. What is the status of the political reconciliation that was supposed to take place over the summer? Why have so many factions abandoned the government?

Cue the next dog and pony show.

How is it a success when all we did was buy off the Sunni tribesmen with money and guns?

Because it didn't happen that way. They turned on AQ of their own accord, apart from us, and as a surprise to us. We're just trying to help things along. After we leave they'll still be killing AQ.

Why can't people see that this strategy, while giving us a short term break from about 5% of the total attacks in Iraq conducted by AQI, means nothing in terms of actually solving the problem?

Which problem? There are multiple. AQ thought they could walk into Iraq and dominate, that we threw them a big fat bone. Turns out they were wrong, as they are not hunted by fellow Sunnis. Very, very bad PR. So that problem is being solved. The Sunni-vs-Shia is a different problem.

The emphasis on AQI was just a marketing ploy--nothing more.

AQ made it big when they threw their franchising behind Zarqawi and made them AQI. And we flat out beat AQ in Iraq, in what they thought would be the friendliest possible territory for them. They made the big bet and they lost. Their own Sunnis beat them with some aid from us.

The so-called success in Anbar is designed to get people to forget...

Again, the whole Anbar thing was a surprise to us. It was called the Anbar Awakening by the people in Anbar, it is not a term some PR hack made up. And I doubt very much the tribes in Anbar did it make people (US public?) forget Baghdad, ethnic cleansing, infrstructure, or any of the other reasons you listed, etc. They had their own reasons.

You ought to read up a bit so you don't look so damned ignorant. This shit isn't secret. It's common knowledge.

Swan: Any chance that the rest of Iraq isn't just like Anbar in such a way that the same result can't be made to happen in the same way...maybe it was the Anbarese who made it happen

If by "Anbarese" you mean Sunni pro-nationalist, then yes. It will be quite a trick to pull off the same in other areas.

Pale Rider: How is it a success when all we did was buy off the Sunni tribesmen with money and guns?

I suppose that would be the "they may be bastards, but they're our [bought and paid for] bastards" definition of success. Not entirely without merit, and likely a helluva lot more cost effective than the alternatives--assuming they stay bought and that we're there for any period of time.

Meant "now hunted"

SJRSM--

So if the Anbar awakening wasn't expected, occurred before we surged troops into Iraq, had nothing to do with us giving the Sunnis guns and money, and was all about them "turning on AQI of their own accord" then why do Republicans rush to take credit for something that had, apparently, nothing to do with our efforts?

How goddamned many times do I have to say it--AQI was responsible, at its height, for less than 10% of all attacks on US troops.

How goddamned many times did Petraeus talk about Anbar, knowing full well we were buying and paying for these people BEFORE his surge strategy and without admitting that giving guns and money to the people who were killing our troops last summer might now be a smart thing to do? Oh wait--it IS a smart thing to do because we're going to leave Iraq anyway. I get it now. And we certainly don't want Iraq to be a Shia dominated country--we secretly want the Sunnis back in charge now that we see what happens when the Shia run things. So to make our pals in Saudi Arabia happy, we're sending money and guns to the people THEY told us THEY were going to send money and guns to last year:

December 13, 2006
Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.
The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.
The New York Times first reported the conversation Wednesday, saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq's Shiite majority.
Asked about the meeting, a senior Saudi official -- who spoke on condition he not be named -- ruled out using terminology such as "warning" or "threatening." He said, "I believe the Saudi position was clear, that things might deteriorate or drift in Iraq, and then the kingdom will find itself forced to interfere."
The official also added: "This is not only expected from Saudi Arabia, but also Jordan and a lot of other Arab countries can't stand still and see things going that direction."

So the Anbar Awakening--which started in January 2007--had NOTHING to do with Cheney being told to support the Sunnis?

Decency requires you to land on your feet after you try to spin that leap of logic.

The fact of the matter is, these Sunnis are united as a front called "Iraq Awakening" and their goal is to topple any Shia government after we leave. They're taking our money and guns so that, when we do leave Iraq, they can stand up to the Shia and take back Baghdad. They're being actively supported by us and the Saudis and that's the planned endgame for Iraq--we're leaving, we want the Saudis happy, and we're setting up the Sunnis to take back their country.

You do realize we're leaving Iraq, don't you? This little pet project of neo-con dementia has a shelf life, and its rapidly expiring.

You do realize that the people you think are going to carry on some grand struggle in Iraq for freedom, democracy, love of puppies and in the name of 9/11 are just selling you out behind your back to whichever evil bastard they can give money and guns to so they can be free to run from their mess and find something else to fuck up, don't you?

You do realize the irony of toeing the line for the Saudis, who sent the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, who sent millions to fund al Qaeda and like-minded groups, who have been arming Sunnis since day one to fight the US occupation of Iraq, who support Madrassahs that train terrorists who want to kill Americans, who...

Nah. You've proven you're too stupid to figure this shit out.

The success or failure of this initiative will tell us most of what we need to know about whether our continued presence in Iraq has any chance of being productive.

Still on the fence about whether GWB's excellent Iraqi adventure might be a failure or a success?

Good f-ing gawd, Kevin.

The "Anbar Awakening" has — so far — been a considerable success for the U.S. mission in Iraq. Over the past year, as Sunni tribes in Anbar have increasingly turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, violence in the province has dropped dramatically.

Unfortunately, the Sunni's have pulled out of the government and haven;t shown much willingness to work with the Shiites.

One step forward, two steps back.

Yeah Kevin, why are you still on the fence wrt success or failure in Iraq. Your true colors always come out once in a while.

Get it into your head, the Iraqi adventure was, is and will continue to be a failure, regardless of any type of tactic or strategy employed by the occupying force.

Beats me how anyone can look at the past five years and not expect the Iraqi police, army etc to take sectarian sides when the shooting starts.

So let me get this straight. As of Jan 09, we'll have been fighting in Iraq for 5+ years, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost 4000+ Americans, crippled tens of thousands more, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, displaced millions more yet we'll be back to the early 80s, arming and propping up a Sunni minority in Iraq.

Have I got that right?

Splendid.

Andrew Sullivan said that our support of the Sunni tribesmen against al Queda is a case of assuming that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, whereas this is in fact from the Sunni perspective only a temporary alliance. He added that, this being the Middle East, there is always an unlimited supply of temporary enemies-of-my-enemy.

"The success or failure of this initiative will tell us most of what we need to know about whether our continued presence in Iraq has any chance of being productive."

Which initiative is that? The US initiative to get Sunni into the Iraq security institutions, or the Iraqi "government"'s initative to keep them out?

then why do Republicans rush to take credit for something that had, apparently, nothing to do with our efforts?

Uhhh... cuz they're politicians and that is what politicians have been doing forever, same as with economic ups and downs?

So the Anbar Awakening--which started in January 2007--had NOTHING to do with Cheney being told to support the Sunnis?

Protecting the Sunnis is more like it, and doing so does not imply that the Sunnis would then turn and attack AQ and throw them out. It doesn't imply that at all. Speaking of contorted logic.

Again, you mix and match the issues with the Shia and issues with AQ. They are distinct, and you are stupid for failing to hold them separate in your shriveled pea brain.

"Sunni tribes in Anbar have increasingly turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq"

And you know this how? US propaganda?

Everytime you repeat the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" myth, you further the neo-con cause.

The largest Shiite political coalition in Iraq demanded Tuesday that the U.S. military abandon its recruitment of Sunni tribesmen into the Iraqi police, saying some are members of "armed terrorist groups" and are engaged in killing, kidnapping and extortion.

They're kidding right? Last I heard Baghdad was moving toward a Sunni free status thanks to some some Shiite armed terrorist groups engaging in killing, kidnapping and extorion.