Iraqi Government to Sunni Tribes

#2
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?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
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.
 
#4
Yes, it is of course a right move. However, encouraging of tribal traditions is a step in the backward direction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1305750,00.html

Initially, at least, the secular and progressive Ba'athists did everything in their power to abolish a system they regarded as archaic and even feudal. In the 70s and 80s, breaking with centuries of tradition, they prohibited Iraqis from attaching their tribal affiliations to their surname. Saddam personally set an example by removing the "al-Tikriti" after his name, which indicated his geographical and tribal origin.
But I repeat, in current situation Iraqi tribal system should be used.
 
#5
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.
 
#6
Rowums said:
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.
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.
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
Rowums said:
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.
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.
Fair enough, I knew there had to be a good reason why not
 
#8
PartTimePongo said:
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?
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. :?
 
#9
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.
 
#11
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
There seems to be a lot of agreement with that strategy

This shift could be seen in microcosm in a report last week in The Wall Street Journal on the town of Tall Afar. Tall Afar was an insurgent stronghold, where last month American and Iraqi forces launched a major operation, killing and arresting hundreds. But to avoid the mistakes of the past, when cities were won only to be lost again in a few months, the commanding officer of the American squadron, Lt. Col. Chris Hickey, spent a great deal of time, energy and attention constructing a local political order that would hold. That meant empowering both the Sunnis and Shiites. Hickey reached out to the main Sunni tribal sheik, a man who only a few months earlier had been insurgent leader and imprisoned in Abu Ghraib. "Reconciliation is the key to this thing," explained Col. H. R. McMaster, commander of U.S. forces in north-western Iraq. "This insurgency depends on sectarian tension to move and operate." McMaster articulates a strategy that is part military and part political.
 
#12
Rowums said:
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.
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!
 

Top