There's encouraging news from the town of Husaybah in Iraq - the local nationalist insurgents seem to have taken up arms against the local Al Qaida terrorists, who had attempted to turn the town into a taliban-esque nightmare.
Bemused US Marines are looking on as the two groups direct mortar and machine-gun fire at each other instead of the Americans.
Captain Thomas Sibley, intelligence officer of 3rd battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, based in Qaim, said: "People here were committed supporters of the insurgency but you cannot now even get a marriage licence.
"The tribes are the only system or organisation left and they appear to have stepped in.
"In the last week our camp in the town was attacked and the attackers got ambushed on the way back by two machineguns and mortar fire. That is good news for us."
Of course, many rightwing bloggers are hyping this as yet another corner turned, but it would pay to be more cautious.
Firstly, the conditions in Husaybah are unique - nowhere else have Al Qaida a strong enough grip to try to over-rule the nationalsit insurgency and make an Islamist run community by sheer force.
Secondly, whichever faction wins will likely be emboldened by their success and go right back to shooting at the Marines, who are still "the enemy".
I would personally love to see the Marines try negotiating a temporary no-strings-attached truce and weigh in on the nationalist's side. I know it's unlikely to happen - issues of distrust make it almost impossible - but I imagine if it did it would be very much harder for the nationalists to back to blowing up their temporary allies afterwards.
Wouldn't that send a marvellous message to insurgents in the rest of Iraq? Suddenly, "the enemy of my enemy" would not be as clearcut.
Trouble is, even if uncertainties on the scene could be overcome, the ruling Shia would not like it one bit. They are already up in arms about the US negotiations with elements of the insurgency and worried it may become a sellout.
The Americans and everyone else must understand that the Iraqi people will never accept any talks with the criminals who have blood on their hands," Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, a prominent Shiite Muslim cleric and member of parliament, declared during Friday prayers.
Which conveniently forgets the acceptance of former insurgency groups like the Badr Brigade and Mahdi Army into militias controlled by Shia members of the current government.
Meanwhile, the US is putting heavy pressure on the Iraqis to stick to a timetable while absolutely refusing to have one of it's own. The recent British TV interview with President Bush is revealing.
TONIGHT: Is the administration at sixes and sevens about the insurgency in Iraq? The vice-president said that we're in the last throes, or seeing the last throes of the insurgency. Donald Rumsfeld comes up and says we could be there for five, eight, 10, 12 years. Which is it? Which do you believe?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will succeed in Iraq, because, one, the Iraqis want to live in a free society.
TONIGHT: But how long will it take, Mr President?
PRESIDENT BUSH: And, two, that the Iraqis want to take the fight to the enemy. And people want me to put a timetable on things; that's a huge mistake. Putting a timetable on this - on our stay there in Iraq simply emboldens the enemy and discourages our friends. And so, therefore, my answer is just, quickly as possible, and we are making progress.
Now personally, I think the argument that a timetable plays into the hands of the terrorists is really shakey. It sounds reasonable at first but on examination it needs more of an argument to back it up than has so far been heard.
First, why on earth would a timetable "discourage our friends"? It's exactly what many in the Iraqi government have always asked for, as a show of good faith that the US doesn't intend to occupy their country forever.
Secondly, the insurgency cannot afford to lie low until the US leaves because Iraqis would get used to peacefulness in the interim and definitely react harshly against the insurgents if they then started violence after their supposed causus belli had withdrawn. They would lose any and all support.
It's hardly as if Iraqi security would stop trying to hunt them down just because they had stopped shooting either. Even if the insurgency keeps on keeping on then the Bush administration say they expect Coalition and Iraqi forces to defeat it - and the military always have a timetable. For everything. So why aren't we being told?
In other words,Bush is talking horsepuckey....again. And again, no-one seems willing to call him on it and ask the tough questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment