Taking the insurgency to the ballot box

October 27, 2005 6:59 AM

Iraqi insurgents are rejecting al-Qaida in favour of the political process. Ghaith Abdul-Ahad spent 5 days with an Iraqi resistance group during the constitutional vote, and found that al-Qaida involvement in the insurgency-particularly their tactic of targetting Iraqi police and soldiers-is both unwelcome and unwanted. Instead many Sunni are looking toward using the democratic process to achieve their ends.
posted by MadOwl (42 comments total)

Well thank god THAT's over. We win the war on terror! w00t! Next up, the war on jealousy.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:09 AM on October 27, 2005

Interesting that they are deciding to agree with the democratic process... to an extent. "Hey, we'll stop bombing for a couple days around the election" - they still, however, are busy being terrorists the rest of the time.

And what is up with this tendency of people to criticize fpps because they only contain one link? What if that one link is interesting? Personally, I only ever read one or two of the "make every word in the fpp a different link" posts, and I much prefer one or two link posts.
posted by antifuse at 7:12 AM on October 27, 2005

I hope it's true. If it's true it supports the idea of getting the US out sooner rather than later. If you must have a force in there, let it be someone with nothing to gain, like Brazil. A UN force might work, but who would it comprise? Since it would likely be heavily US based it would be no different than the current situation.
posted by caddis at 7:18 AM on October 27, 2005

Many Sunni Arabs participated in the political process by rejecting the "bitterly divisive" constitution by wide margins. The test will be to see whether they accept not getting what they wanted from the political process.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:22 AM on October 27, 2005

I can't wait until there are no more terrorists!
posted by odinsdream at 7:32 AM on October 27, 2005

Now wait a minute, Iraqi Sunnis have ALWAYS rejected al-Qaida. Dictators - and their supporters - generally do not like political enemies. They persecute them. That's what dictators do.

Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and persecuted Shi'ites - his political enemies - but let Islamic fundamentalist al-Qaida - another political enemy - operate within his borders? Yeah right.

Repeat after me: The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on al Qaida.
posted by three blind mice at 8:10 AM on October 27, 2005

they just enjoy messing with journalists. who wouldn't?
posted by setanor at 8:16 AM on October 27, 2005

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on al Qaida.

(Other than those members of Al Qaida who are killed there of course.)

(And the prospect of neutering the recruiting appeal of the terrorists by the construction of a free and democratic state and casting stark contrast on other joints like Syria, Egypt, and Iran.)
posted by dsquid at 8:17 AM on October 27, 2005

"Politics for us is like filthy dead meat," Abu Theeb told me. "We are not allowed to eat it, but if you are passing through the desert and your life depends on it, God says it's OK."

Iraqi vote: like eating filthy dead meat in the desert.
posted by dead_ at 8:17 AM on October 27, 2005

three blind mice - the linked article didn't say that Saddam permitted Al Qaeda in Iraq. It says that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq now, "operating" meaning, in this context, blowing up US forces and Iraqi citizens. So I don't think I will repeat after you.
posted by Eyebeams at 8:21 AM on October 27, 2005

Iraqi vote: like eating filthy dead meat in the desert.

Politics. It's the other white meat.
posted by dsquid at 8:23 AM on October 27, 2005

c'mon dsquid. Can we agree that al Qaida is fueled by religious fundamentalism?

For better or for worse, Saddam Hussein was the bulwark against religious fundamentalism in the Middle East. Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq under Saddam was a secular state - one of the few in the Middle East - and never a recruiting ground for al Qaida.

Now, as a result of the invasion, it is. George Bush is the recruiter for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.
posted by three blind mice at 8:28 AM on October 27, 2005

It says that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq now, "operating" meaning, in this context, blowing up US forces and Iraqi citizens. So I don't think I will repeat after you.

eyebeams see above. The invasion of Iraq created this problem. If you want to buy into the fiction that the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror because "terrorists" are now operating in Iraq well then there is probably nothing I can say that will change your mind.

The fact of the matter is that because of this illegal war, the US cast itself in the role of al Qaida and al Qaida is cast in the role of freedom fighters trying to liberate their country from foreign occupation.
posted by three blind mice at 8:34 AM on October 27, 2005

Repeat after me: The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on al Qaida.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on al Qaida.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on al Qaida.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on al Qaida.

George Bush is the recruiter for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.

George Bush is the recruiter for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.

George Bush is the recruiter for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.
posted by twistedonion at 8:38 AM on October 27, 2005

twistedonion: what are you crazy ? Goergie boy doing recruiting ? You gotta be kidding me...he's so clearly a puppet in hands of Cheney and Rumsfeld it's almost no longer funny.
posted by elpapacito at 8:48 AM on October 27, 2005

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the recruiters for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the recruiters for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the recruiters for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.

My brian is fubared so ahm just repeatin, and repeatin. I've givin up thinkin.
posted by twistedonion at 8:51 AM on October 27, 2005

c'mon dsquid. Can we agree that al Qaida is fueled by religious fundamentalism?

For better or for worse, Saddam Hussein was the bulwark against religious fundamentalism in the Middle East. Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq under Saddam was a secular state - one of the few in the Middle East - and never a recruiting ground for al Qaida.


Mmmm, no... can't go there. Secular dictatorships like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt and religious ones like Saudi Arabia and Iran form the political climate necessary for Al Qaeda terrorism to grow and spread. Intrenched poverty. Institutionalized hatred and blame of the west...for everything (as cover for the dictators.)

With the Middle East as it is/was constituted, terrorism was never going away. Al Qaeda has stated their goals for all who will listen. It's a philosophy of submit and convert or die, and it's not limited to the Middle East and Africa.

Now, as a result of the invasion, it is. George Bush is the recruiter for al Qaida in Iraq, not the Iraqis.

And what a great recruitment tool. Come to Iraq and die by the thousands. In the short term, we know where they are, and can confront them militarily. In the long term we've taken a step towards removing the conditions under which they are created. Drain the swamp and the mosquitos die off.

It's an audacious plan that has and will require a massive commitment in lives and money, and may or may not work.

I propose that leaving Saddam in power and doing nothing was certain to fail.
posted by dsquid at 8:59 AM on October 27, 2005

AQ must be the world's first "freedom fighters" who target people because they wish to vote in an election.
posted by Eyebeams at 9:00 AM on October 27, 2005

*sigh*

With the disruption of Hussein's spy network, al-Qa'ida entered Iraq to help the insurgency, and more importantly, grab IRaqi weapons and smuggle them into Saudi Arabia for their plans there.

The plan came from al-Qa'ida and the home-grown Sunni insurgency, "OK, let's try this democracy thing."

So, all the Sunnis voted as a block against the Constitution. And lost. Just like when the southern states all voted against Lincoln.

Before, they were skeptical of democracy. Now they've tried it, and they know it doesn't work. This "success" has proven all the Sunnis' fears true. So, enjoy this little tirumph. It's the least we'll ever have there.

Al-Qa'ida isn't a bunch of 2-D cardboard cut-outs of cartoon villains. They have goals, and they're willing to try different strategies to attain those goals.
posted by jefgodesky at 9:02 AM on October 27, 2005

Al Q is in Iraq ... there is an important discussion that revolves around HOW they got there, and how much the invasion enabled that situation. That discussion would ideally feed into a comprehensive strategy for "winning" the "war on terrorism" (in quotes because those words would have to be defined in some measurable, concrete way). There remains the tactical problem of Al Q operating in Iraq. Ideally the tactics of solving that problem would be consistent with the overall strategy. However, the tactical problem requires attention now, and without a comprehensive strategy you run the risk of tactical decisions that run counter to the strategical direction. This is the root of most of the problems at the National Command in my opinion. There has not been any coherent strategy that gave any concrete guidance to the leaders on the ground.

For the situation in Iraq I've finally seen some glimmer of hope in a proposal from Congressman Skelton (I think it was him). The proposal basically said for every 3 Iraqi Brigade that are capable of sustained independent operations, 1 Coalition Brigade could be rotated out of theater. Now granted this doesn't address the broader war on terrorism, but it would give concrete guidance to the military on how to disengage from Iraq. All kinds of detailed plans can be developed that support that particular guidance. It doesn't matter whether 3 to 1 is the right ratio, that can be adjusted over time. What matters is whether its a good strategy, is it actionable, and is there a defined end point. The first point is probably yes, since it is probably better for Iraqi's to handle their security than foreign troops, and its a resounding yes on the last two points.
posted by forforf at 9:02 AM on October 27, 2005

In the long term we've taken a step towards removing the conditions under which they are created.

The conditions under which Al-Qaeda was created has nothing to do with secular dictatorships and everything to do with the cold war. Stop spouting bullshit dsquid, I can smell it a thousand miles away.
posted by twistedonion at 9:03 AM on October 27, 2005

The article doesn't say the insurgents are giving up terrorism in favor of democracy. It says they are willing to do whatever it takes to get Americans out of their country, and they will use whatever tools are available.

They'll vote when it is to their advantage, and they'll kill people when it's to their advantage. They don't care about the process, they just care about the result.
posted by Jatayu das at 9:10 AM on October 27, 2005

"Repeat after me" is a dangerous concept. Almost reads "don't bother thinking, I'll do it for you and you just repeat after me."

Seems to me that is a big problem, always has been.
posted by a3matrix at 9:14 AM on October 27, 2005

dsquid: I propose that whatever the plan was in Iraq for America, it has already failed

45% of Iraqis feel that killing American troops is completely justified. 82% are opposed to the presence of American and British troops. 99% think America has done nothing to make Iraq safer (link).

After thinking about that, go look at this. What you see when you look at the map of how Iraqis voted is a nation starkly divided. A significant minority wants no part in this new government.

The civil war has already started. Talking about al-Queda is a red herring. The problem standing between Iraq and a stable democracy is not terrorists or terrorism, it's a militant, disgruntled minority of Sunnis willing to fight and die for a vision of Iraq that is very different from the Shia/Kurd one (also known as: the problem with toppling Saddam that has been widely known forever, but was conveniently and stupidly ignored by Bush and the supporters of the war).

You are spouting 18-month old talking points. They were damn silly then. They are totally ridiculous now.

The "fly paper theory" you mention in your last few paragraphs above is morally reprehensible, and you ought to think about the blood of innocent Iraqis before you tout it any more. It is also highly unlikely that what has happened in Iraq has done anything but strengthen the hand of whatever terrorists rush to the now-failed-state of Iraq. We are not "winning" there by any stretch of the imagination, and currently there are no plans to do anything differently, so we should keep on losing for the foreseeable future, as we currently are. When we withdraw, tail between legs, one can hope that the civil war will die down, but our chances aren't good.
posted by teece at 9:18 AM on October 27, 2005

Secular dictatorships like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt and religious ones like Saudi Arabia and Iran form the political climate necessary for Al Qaeda terrorism to grow and spread. Intrenched poverty. Institutionalized hatred and blame of the west...for everything (as cover for the dictators.)

while secular democracies like Indonesia, the Philippines and Turkey have used the power of Freedom, Liberty and The Free Market to rid themselves of terrorists. oh, wait ...

keep in mind that Al-Qaeda is a middle class terrorist club. The 9/11 bombers were university educated engineering types who did not come from backgrounds of extreme poverty and spent years living in countries that provided freedom of expression and assembly (the US, UK, Canada, Germany, etc.)

Merely providing these people with ballot boxes will not prevent them from becoming terrorists.

With the Middle East as it is/was constituted, terrorism was never going away. Al Qaeda has stated their goals for all who will listen. It's a philosophy of submit and convert or die, and it's not limited to the Middle East and Africa.

and the key is not to make them shut up. It's to make their audience turn away. They will only turn away if America positions itself as a friendly alternative and not the Hard Place to AQ's Rock. You don't have to do that with flattening and remaking Iraq. You could, instead, rebuild the Palestinian Territories. Rebuild Afghanistan. Pressure Egypt into conducting democratic elections. There are literally dozens of options for creating prosperous societies in the Middle East that do not involve a costly invasion and war.

And what a great recruitment tool. Come to Iraq and die by the thousands.

actually, it's more like, come to Iraq and begin your internship in bombmaking and urban guerilla warfare, then take those lessons to Southern Thailand, Chechnya and London. It's the flypaper theory, but in reverse.

Welcome to Eternal War. Good luck with that.

I propose that leaving Saddam in power and doing nothing was certain to fail.

I propose that leaving Saddam in power and building up the prosperity of his neighbors would have destabilized his nation to the point where invasion would've been unnecessary.

And it would left you with a military that could've been used as a deterrent against more pressing threats. Like, say, Iran.
posted by bl1nk at 9:32 AM on October 27, 2005

Metafilter: like eating filthy dead meat in the desert
posted by mazola at 10:03 AM on October 27, 2005

Where is Osama?
posted by srboisvert at 10:25 AM on October 27, 2005

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe you can appease and/or ignore Al Qaeda out of existance.

It seems so easy when you guys espouse victory through capitulation.

But then again I'm not an Iraqi living under Saddam or an Afghani under the Taliban.
posted by dsquid at 10:40 AM on October 27, 2005

It seems so easy when you guys espouse victory through capitulation.

It seems so easy when others espouse vistory through total war. The war in Iraq is the biggest foreign policy mistake America ever made. Nothing comes close. The GOP used to deride the concept of "nation building" - for good readon - and now they are trying to nation build in the most contentious, complicated, and difficult place on the planet. Republicans don't trust the government to provide health care for US citizens, but trust the government to create democracy in Iraq. It is doomed to fail and America will pay heavily for the mistake.

But then again I'm not a Republican living in bliss under the Bush regime.
posted by three blind mice at 10:57 AM on October 27, 2005

Are these new Defenders of Dubya in this thread or just PP sock puppet accounts?

"Fightin' 'em terraists over there so's we don't haveta fight 'em here." - now where did I hear that? sounds like the swamp theory recycled
posted by nofundy at 11:04 AM on October 27, 2005

define al-Qaeda
posted by mr.marx at 11:46 AM on October 27, 2005

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe you can appease and/or ignore Al Qaeda out of existance.

You'd actually do well to spend five seconds thinking about it. This statement is absurdly stupid, dsquid. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. You know that. Don't pretend we are stupid. All the post hoc rationalizations for how this in now part of the Global War on Terror you make up after the fact are nothing but clap trap. A disagreement with whether or not Bush is fighting AQ the right way does not mean Bush's critics want to invite folks to fly planes into buildings, and it's a really jerkish and dishonest thing to imply. But more to the point, the AQ issue is not going be resolved, in any way, by the outcome in Iraq.

It seems so easy when you guys espouse victory through capitulation.

What the hell are you even talking about here? It's pathetically stupid to assume that anyone that doesn't agree with you on Iraq wants to give in to terrorists. Don't play that infantile game.

But then again I'm not an Iraqi living under Saddam or an Afghani under the Taliban.

Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with each other. Until you quit conflating them, it's hard to believe that you are thinking rationally. As I said above, 99% of Iraqis believe America has made Iraq worse than it was under Saddam (or I guess you could be a Pollyanna and claim that 99% think America has not made it any better than under Saddam, pick your poison). That should give you pause. Does the "we've made the world a safer place" line even make you stop to think, at all? Because it damn well should if you are thinking.
posted by teece at 11:47 AM on October 27, 2005

Wow, this article is good news indeed if true--and published in the Guardian, no less.

Abu Theeb says his move into politics has come at a price: he has had to shave off his beard so that he can visit Baghdad. For weeks he has been travelling, visiting houses, urging people to register to vote. "It's a new jihad," he says. "There is time for fighting and a time for politics."
posted by LarryC at 11:52 AM on October 27, 2005

I'm willing to believe that the al Qaeda approach could, indeed, be failing to win over ordinary Iraqis, due to the same protracted-war problem that we're having on this end (and with much higher casualties and much closer to home). I have, indeed, argued that it would fail in Iraq.

What I'm incapable of believing, at this point, is that this split is the result of any deft strategy for splitting the insurgency on our part (though just possibly it stems from deliberate political decisions made by the Iraqi government, or more to the point, interim legislature). A pragmatic approach to winning the war would seem to require seeking such splits and exploiting them to the hilt. I can't say that the performance thus far, or the rhetoric surrounding, indicates any such strategy. It really is victory through endless war, then, not the least because that's what plays best in the red states, and not the least because all the smarter people have been sidelined or quit by this point.

In any case, as I said in the earlier thread, a 2/3 majority against the constitution suggests a substantial minority were for it (although with rampant ballot fraud who could ever tell). Whether this substantial minority was just Shi'a, Kurd, Turkmen, or Christian enclaves within the Sunni provinces isn't something the results tell us. If there were Sunnis voting against it, I would be very interested in why, because that's the last best hope there is in this situation.
posted by dhartung at 12:17 PM on October 27, 2005

Dimwit republicons.

You have no idea what's going on in Iraq, except for what you're allowed to believe by the mainstream media.

Every Iraqi knows that as long as the American army occupies its soil, they will never be free to do anything.

It's all lip service.

Furthermore, there is no proof that Al Qaeda is behind the bombings targeting Iraqis.

It's sad that our country is being run by people so easily dupped.
posted by rougy at 1:25 PM on October 27, 2005

Politics for us is like filthy dead meat

See? They really do understand democracy after all! And we said it couldn't be done...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:30 PM on October 27, 2005

dsquid: But then again I'm not an Iraqi living under Saddam or an Afghani under the Taliban.

Perhaps you're a citizen of Uzbekistan then, where the dictatorial regime shot almost 200 protesters dead during an anti-government demonstration this past May? Or a subject of Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal to wear a crucifix or for a woman to show her face in public? Because the United States government sends those two countries millions of dollars in military aid, so that they may maintain their grip on power, and continue to shower their people with the fruits of liberty lead.

Please disabuse yourself of the idea that the United States is working to fulfill some transcendent noble purpose with its wars and foreign policy. It's just securing its own interests, is all. Our government is not concerned about who gets hurt, if they don't vote for anyone in Washington. We are no better than France, Germany, or any other European country the dittoheads have demonized and scapegoated in the last five years.
posted by skoosh at 7:24 PM on October 27, 2005

*crosses fingers*
posted by my sock puppet account at 9:19 PM on October 27, 2005

whether 3 to 1 is the right ratio, that can be adjusted over time. What matters is whether its a good strategy, is it actionable, and is there a defined end point.
posted by forforf

3:1 is not measurable. The number of batallions actually capable of protecting themselves is a matter of debate between propagandists, not a real number.

Because of infiltrators, Americans don't trust the Iraqi forces enough to give them weapons. That makes them sitting ducks. Because of infiltrators, the Iraqi forces don't trust the other Iraq units because they don't want to be led into ambushes.

My solution? Do something FRICKING DIFFERENT from what we're doing now. How about instead of pretending to have a coalition, we actually form one? Instead of undermining the UN through the government media channels like FoxNews, how about we accept the fact that ALL the shareholders need a place at the table in rebuilding Iraq. That includes the "irrelevant" countries of "Old Europe".
posted by surplus at 5:44 AM on October 28, 2005

I disagree surplus. The military has a very defined way of expressing and measuring unit readiness. There are five levels of readiness, and they can roughly be thought of as grades. A and B units are ready to deploy to war. C level units can deploy to war, but they have deficiencies that will impair their ability to do their mission. D and F units are not ready. If the same measure is used to grade Iraqi brigades, then this translates into very specific and achievable things. First, it means that the Iraqi Brigades have to be trained to a high level of readiness. The US military already trains itself to these standards, I'd be very surprised if they weren't training the Iraqis to the same standard. Also, it means that there is a measurable estimation of progress. Granted this can't be the only measure, but it is one that has real meaning. Since it translates into the ability of the Iraqi government to defend itself.
I would agree that there would have to be some checks and balances to be sure people didn't try to game the system, but there are ways of doing that too.
As for the not giving the Iraqi weapons. If the goal is to eventually be able to leave, then you have to give Iraqi's weapons. Not giving them would be tactically advantageous, but a mistake strategically.
posted by forforf at 7:05 AM on October 28, 2005

Is this the new "last throes" line?

Or is it the latest "turning the corner" talking point?

It's hard to keep up with the twists of propaganda at times.
posted by nofundy at 7:26 AM on October 28, 2005

forforf
The US has not demonstrated an ability to provide that number.

Just 3 weeks ago Bush made a speech which claimed "Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. " LINK

The same week, our US commander in Iraq, Abazaid, told Congress only ONE batallion was ready. LINK

Sure, your scale of 1 to 5 may apply to readiness. But let's check the bullshit scale for US leadership's number of ready batallions: Survey says... 5, total bullshit.
posted by surplus at 10:07 AM on October 28, 2005