Some US-backed Iraqi militias plotting attacks: VP

[sabra]

Source: AFP

PARIS (AFP) — Some of the Iraqi former insurgents recruited by US forces to fight Al-Qaeda are simply biding their time and waiting for a chance to resume attacks, Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi warned Tuesday.

Abdel Mahdi's comments came amid tension between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and the Sahwa, or "Awakening Movement" of militias and former insurgents who switched sides to fight alongside the Americans.

Much of the improvement in security in Iraq over the past two years has been attributed to the insurgents' decision to change sides, and any breakdown in their relations with Baghdad would be of serious concern for US commanders.

The recruits are now paid by the Iraqi government, and many thousands are being integrated into the Iraqi security forces, but clashes flared recently with government troops after a series of arrests of Sahwa leaders.

"It was a movement that allowed us to chase Al-Qaeda out of Anbar Province, so it was supported by the government and the Iraqi people. Without the Sahwa it would have been very hard to get rid of Al-Qaeda," Abdel Mahdi said.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j4neKEXd8MyL-wYyOO8sYAuekFFw

[Arctic Dave]

1. IMO Al Queda in Iraq was a straw man invented by the US

so the Iraqis would have someone to hate more then us. I would be suprised to think that when we did leave things would be peaceful. Now all parties will be better armed and better trained when they start their killing rampages again.

[florida08]

2. I'm sure you know this sabra

"insurgents' decision to change sides"

The Bush regime paid Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack US forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "US-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack US troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al Qaeda."

Now they have returned as was foretold to fight against the occupation. Also tens of thousands of supporters of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have rallied against the US presence in Iraq. The recent deadline of 2010 is not sitting well with them.

[Igel]

3. No doubt, there's some truth to what he says.

How much truth there is, well, that's a different question.

When a politician in a largely tribal society speaks, it's best to know what his affiliation is. He's Shi'ite, a top politician in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (so his group had a dog in the early sectarian fighting), and survived a suicide attempt (probably at the hands of Sunnis).

In other words, a ranking member of a group that has always distrusted the Sahwa movement because, well, of who they were--Sunnis and pro-Saddam.

He's also probably one helping to worsen the problem. On DU in '04 and '05 it was astutely pointed out that many of the young men being recruited by the "resistance" merely wanted jobs. They were mercenaries, for rent to the highest bidder. We outbid the "freedom fighters" who wanted to blow up bakeries, and the Shi'ite government agreed, reluctantly, to incorporate many of the young men into their police. The idea, however, of giving Sunnis guns and police training rankled those who believe that the least of their tribe is better than the best of the other tribe so that program (a) was reluctantly implemented and (b) is far below quotas--which is a sticking point. After all, the men will go back to being unemployed and up for sale ... with the proviso that they've now also been lied to, and not only get to fight the general battle with Shi'ites over honor and such apparent fluff, but a personal battle for honor.

While in terms of logic you don't engage in ad hominem arguments (and expect them to stick), this is a discourse-pragmatic issue: It's what he's expected to say if he's correct, but it's also what he's expected to say if he's incorrect. Since he doesn't prove his claim, our proving his claim is difficult without waiting (and once we've waited it'll still be hard to get a good handle on how accurate he actually was, beyong the trivial claim that in any sufficiently large group of converts they'll be recidivists) there's not much more to say.