Sunni forces losing patience with U.S.

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC

U.S.-backed Sunni volunteer forces, which have played a vital role in reducing violence in Iraq, are increasingly frustrated with the American military and the Iraqi government over what they see as a lack of recognition of their growing political clout and insufficient U.S. support.

Since Feb. 8, thousands of fighters in restive Diyala province have left their posts in order to pressure the government and its American backers to replace the province's Shiite police chief. On Wednesday, their leaders warned that they would disband completely if their demands were not met. In Babil province, south of Baghdad, fighters have refused to man their checkpoints after U.S. soldiers killed several comrades in mid-February in circumstances that remain in dispute.

Some force leaders and ground commanders also reject a U.S.-initiated plan that they say offers too few Sunni fighters the opportunity to join Iraq's army and police, and warn that low salaries and late payments are pushing experienced members to quit.

The predominantly Sunni Awakening forces, referred to by the U.S. military as the Sons of Iraq or Concerned Local Citizens, are made up mostly of former insurgents who have turned against extremists because of their harsh tactics and interpretation of Islam. The U.S. military pays many fighters roughly $10 a day to guard and patrol their areas. Thousands more unpaid volunteers have joined out of tribal and regional fealties.

U.S. efforts to manage this fast-growing movement of about 80,000 armed men are still largely effective, but in some key areas the control is fraying. The tensions are the most serious since the Awakening was launched in Anbar province in late 2006, according to Iraqi officials, U.S. commanders and 20 Awakening leaders across Iraq. Some U.S. military officials say they are growing concerned that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq has infiltrated Awakening forces in some areas.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23382421/

[TwilightGardener]

1. Shia are nervous about these newly armed Sunni groups--it's not

a surprise that they're going to start demanding more power and recognition. We're just creating new problems, the more we interfere.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. Backing two opposing sides in a civil war or even one side

in a civil war (as the U.S. did in Vietnam) is never a sound strategy.

The U.S. was so desperate to tamp down the Sunni Resistance (aka "al quaida in Iraq") that it made tactical alliances with various Sunni blocks in Iraq, at the very same time the U.S. official policy was to stand behind the Shia'a central government of al Maliki in Baghdad.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Yes--we went for the easy, short-term fix (basically, we bribed the Sunni insurgents)

without looking toward the future and what it would mean to pit the various factions against each other. Petraeus promised Republican Senators last spring that he would start "getting results" in August--that's when al Sadr suddenly decided to stand down his army (because I'll bet we made him some sort of deal, financial or otherwise) and that's when we started paying the Sunnis in large numbers. I wonder how much impact our "surge" troops actually have, frankly. Money talks even louder than guns. Will be interesting to see how long we can keep placating these disparate groups as they jockey for power--looks like the natives are starting to get restless already.

[sabra]

2. Condi: Nobody ever imagined this could happen

:sarcasm: