Iraqi Government to Sunni Tribes

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Oct 18, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Excellent move, and one as you know Tom6 , I have been banging on about for some time. Re-engage the Sunni's into a Military force, and give them some of their pride back. If it stops them shooting at us, it's all to the good hey?
  2. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    For the most part, it's not them doing the shooting (bombing, rather) of us.

    It's our friendly (???) Shias, ably supported by their Iranian co-Religionists, always keen to stir up trouble for us - at least while we aren't giving in to them over the nuclear issue.
  3. Yes, it is of course a right move. However, encouraging of tribal traditions is a step in the backward direction.,,1305750,00.html

    But I repeat, in current situation Iraqi tribal system should be used.
  4. This is going to sound incredibly naive, but why can't Iraq just be split into three seperate states? Or into three countries? I may be missing the point, but that way the differeing religious groups would all be able to govern themselves.
  5. Kurdistan. Of course most of Kurds dream about an independent state but only they. Turkey fears that independent Kurdish state in the Nothern Iraq would make claims to traditional Kurdish territories in Turkey. Iran and Syria have the same problem. As to Iraqi Sunnis, Turkmans then they are not like this idea at all. Even Shias would object it. Saddam in the process of Arabisation moved Shia Iraqis form the South to Kirkuk - centre of Iraqi Kurdistan.

    Sunni areas. There is no oil there. So sunnis don't like to be an independent but poor state.

    Baghdad - 5mln. 1/5 of Iraqi population. It is a natural capital of 'middle Iraq'. But there are too many Shias there. How to resolve this problem?

    Shia South. Later or sooner it would be under full control of Iran and our American friend don't like this idea. Moreove Shias are 60% of Iraqi population. They wish to rule whole Iraq, not only a part.
  6. Fair enough, I knew there had to be a good reason why not
  7. It's all very easy saying that, but look at the iraqi police force. They are meant to be on our side and yet there are large sections that readily revert back to shooting at the coalition (and iraqi) troops when they feel like it.

    We need to take a stronger approach and try to draw the recruits etc away from the radical influences of their religous leaders, whilst not appearing to encourage them to give up Islam. :?
  8. The problem with recruiting a tribal militia and giving them a uniform with an Iraqi flag on is that you don't change their primary loyalties that easily. You don't get a body of troops loyal to the Iraqi state - you get a better armed, better trained tribal militia that will go along with the directions of said state for as long as it suits them. They'll be great for taking care of other tribal groupings - ask them to take care of their own and nothing will happen. While short term things will get better ultimately we're just training troops for the civil war.
  9. Yeah great Idea PTP and why stop in Iraq why not give Paddy back his guns and provide training for them.
  10. There seems to be a lot of agreement with that strategy

  11. Because if it was split into three seperate states, they would pose little to no counterbalance to the neighbouring regional power that is Iran.

    America are following what is known as their "Twin Pillars" policy in the middle east. Before the fall of the Shah in Iraq, they put their support on Iran and Saudi Arabia.That way they had at least 2 regional powers as allies (as opposed to Iraq and Egypt). When The Shah fell, one of the "Twin Pillars" of the American middle east policy also fell. Therefore they had to rebuild their 2nd Pillar, with Iraq being the best partner available. Hence why they provided Iraq with support during the Iraq/Iran war. Thus, their "twin pillars" strategy had been rebuilt.

    This policy was misunderstood by Saddam though, leading to his invasion of Kuwait (along with an implied threat to the gulf states), and then GW1.

    Once again the "Twin Pillars" policy was in tatters. Now the yanks only had one regional power as an ally (Saudi Arabia). Therefore, they decided (over the years between GW1 and Telic) that there was no hope to become allies with Iran, so Iraq would have to be the target for regime change in order to rebalance the American strategy of two regional powers as allies.

    Seems to have worked, but cost a lot of blood and money to get there!