« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Petraeus: What Sunni Insurgency?
Gen. Petraeus ranked the enemies the U.S. is fighting in Iraq at the behest of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), and there was a notable absence: the non-al-Qaeda Sunni insurgency. All of a sudden, practically every Sunni anti-U.S. fighter is now defined as al-Qaeda.
Petraeus listed al-Qaeda as "the wolf closest to the shed," followed by Shiite militias, who are the cause of much of the "ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad." After that came the "non-kinetic" enemies, such as getting the "institutional structures" established for the Iraqi government, problems with training the Iraqi security forces, corruption and so forth. As he was finishing his list, Petraeus then realized he had forgotten someone: "There are certainly still some Sunni insurgents out there."
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is, at most, 15 percent of the Sunni insurgency. One expert, Malcolm Nance, who's worked with the U.S. military and intelligence in Iraq, puts AQI at two to five percent of the Sunni insurgency. It's good news that several insurgent groups, like the 1920 Revolution Brigades, have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and toward us. The August National Intelligence Estimate is silent on the Sunni insurgency, but certainly doesn't say it has been marginalized.
That shouldn't be surprising: the recent ABC/BBC/NHK poll found that 93 percent of Sunnis believe that attacks on the U.S. are justified. What's more, the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni clerical powerhouse, recently issued a communique to the entire, fractious Sunni "resistance." If there's only a rump Sunni insurgency, someone forgot to tell the AMS.
Petraeus has repeatedly referred to himself as a "realist" over the past two days. But suggesting the Sunni insurgency is diminished to the point of marginality after the anti-al-Qaeda shift is, at best, wishful thinking.
Comments (7)
Spotty Dog wrote on September 11, 2007 9:20 PM:They have to maximize the "success" in Al Anbar, and the only way they can promote their very dangerous doctrine of supporting Sunni militias (the enemy of my Al Qaeda enemy is my friend) is by re-marketing them as benign friendly natives.
Clearly his use of the language of "ethno"-sectarian violence, and "geometry" and "trigonometry" and "kinetic" are all meant to blur and blind. Just as is the miraculous disappearance of the 85% non-Al Qaeda Sunni insurgency, having morphed conveniently, for the moment, into "friendlies."
I was also interested in a comment made by Petraeus about who wrote his prepared report to the Congress. He said once he "took control of the electrons" of it, he wrote it without oversight from anyone else. Later in questioning by a Republican Senator who wanted to reassert the Petraeus independence (Inholf? maybe) Petraeus said something about the report being prepared by those smarter than he but that once he "took control of the electrons" of it last week, it was his document. Did I hear this correctly? Who prepared it before he had his electrons moment?
Zathras wrote on September 11, 2007 9:54 PM:That ABC/BBC poll only published the bad news. The worse news is that 97% of Sunnis think attacks on Shiites are justified.
Dr. Wu wrote on September 12, 2007 5:08 AM:Petraeus has no choice but to soft-pedal 85% of the Sunni insurgency and blame the rest on Al Qaeda, because to do otherwise would bring attention to the role of Saudi Arabia in supporting the insurgents. Needless to say, the Bush White House is going to protect the House of Saud at all costs.
HenryFTP wrote on September 12, 2007 10:08 AM:Really, folks, this isn't so hard to understand. It's perfectly OK for Saudi Arabia to support the Sunnis of Iraq, even though the democratically elected government of Iraq opposes Saudi interference, because Saudi Arabia is on our side in the great worldwide struggle against Islamoterrorism, even though most of the Islamic terrorists who murdered 3,000 on our soil 6 years ago were Saudi citizens.
It's not OK for Iran to support the Sh'ia of Iraq, even though the democratically elected government of Iraq welcomes Iranian help, because Iran is one of founts of Islamoterrorism, even though no Iranian citizens have attacked civilians in the United States and even though Iran helped the United States overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan who harbored the murderous Islamic terrorists who did attack the United States.
This is particularly true because we can "prove" that Iranians have either manufactured or supplied materiel is being used against our forces in Iraq, and we have absolutely no "proof" that any materiel supplied or financed by Saudis is being used against our forces.
And our chattering classes wonder why there is such a disconnect between what is Conventional Wisdom inside the Beltway and what the rest of the world thinks of the United States.
Peter Principle wrote on September 12, 2007 11:48 AM:"It's good news that several insurgent groups, like the 1920 Revolution Brigades, have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and toward us."
At least somee factions within the 1920 Revolution Brigades are denying any truce or negotations with the Americans, and in fact have threatened to kill anyone who claims to represent the 1920 RBs in such talks. A purported 1920 RB leader was also quoted recently in the British press to the effect that the group has patched up its differences with AQ in Iraq.
Who knows? But given how little anyone knows about what's going on inside the insurgency (including, probably, the insurgents themselves) it seems reasonable to assume the possibility that the size and seriousness of the Sunni "awakening" has been wildly, if not totally, exaggerated by the White House/Petraeus propaganda machine.
JEP wrote on September 12, 2007 3:52 PM:Curious, isn't that the only version of "success" that Petreaus can muster is that we are now doing business with our original Iraqi enemies (Saddam's Sunni Baathists) to help us fight Arab terrorists in Iraq, which has been loosely labeled "Al Quida in Iraq."
Who would have ever thought the Bush administration would now bend over forwards and backwards for "Saddam's henchmen
remember that old term? Now we are ARMING Saddam's henchmen again.
If any moment actually represented our "losing" this war it was when Bush re-armed the Baathists.
Because they were our enemy when we got there. Now we have so many NEW enemies, we have to co-opt the original one, just to stall this off long enough for Bush to get out of office!
Losers! Bush has surrendered to the Baathists!
JEP wrote on September 12, 2007 4:01 PM:Tin Foil Hats a-tingling!
Anyone else suspect a mysterious "4th hand" in some of these Iraq events? As if there's another player hiding under all the blood and violence, a dark member made up of all the black-ops interests.
Probably managed by Cheney?
The two events in particular, that seem to me part of a deeper intrigue, was the bombing of the UN HQ, and the bombing of the Mosque.
Both of those events seem somehow out of place in the whole picture, as if there was someone who did not want this war to end because there was too much no-bid profit to be made from it.
It is easy to cover up something like this when there is so much chaos and destruction all around it.
code word "hand", now that's downright cosmic...