The officers called the move by Iraq's Interior Ministry, which oversees police, a threat to security in Anbar, once a stronghold of Sunni insurgent violence. In 2006, a group called the Awakening, some of them former insurgents, rose up with tribal and U.S. backing to battle al-Qaeda in Iraq." Washpost ------------------------------------------------------- Once again, all we accomplished in Iraq was to put the Arab Shia on top in place of the Arab Sunni. Violence is on the rise and will continue to increase until a simmering level of more or less permanent Arab Sunni insurgency is reached. The government will not fall. There will be an Iraqi state with a seat in the UN. Iraq will export oil. Iran will have the greatest influence possible in the Shia parts of the country consistent with the concept of an independent Iraq. Petraeus, Nagl and company all claim that COIN and "The Surge" worked in Iraq. On to Kabul... pl
"Hundreds of police officers, formerly members of an American-backed Sunni paramilitary force, will be stripped of their ranks in the Sunni Arab province of Anbar, tribal leaders and Anbar police said Sunday.
Yes you can assume Shia control but not necessarily subservience to IRAN! IRAN seems to reflect the death wish of SADDAM HUSSEIN and even the Iraqi SHIA know that is a dead end for their future also.
Am I correct that SHIA and SUNNI are two largest sects/factions of ISLAM and are there other contenders for dominance? How do the SHIA and SUNNI stack up across the board militarily throughout the world of ISLAM?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 September 2010 at 10:58 AM
We should all thank the Republicans who put the Shia in power.
Posted by: Fred | 27 September 2010 at 02:25 PM
We succeeded in putting the majority sect in control of the minority sect in Iran. This is usually better than the reverse.
It is important that the minority be fairly treated or there will be unrest so this move on the part of the Shiites would appear to be poorly judged.
Having stated the obvious, I would like to know whether the Iraqi Sunnis can expect any intervention to see that they are well treated from the Sunnis who make up the bulk of the religion world wide?
Posted by: Jane | 27 September 2010 at 02:44 PM
It's about control of the oil revenue i.e. Mosul and Basra.
Posted by: dh | 27 September 2010 at 02:54 PM
Jane,
my hunch is that they will receive covert support from the neighbouring Sunni countries.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 27 September 2010 at 05:53 PM
CP
Very likely. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 27 September 2010 at 05:56 PM
It is interesting that this report comes at the same time as another one highlighting the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The US military claimed that, if nothing else, at least they had succeeded in destroying AQiM. Even that is now in question.
For the AQiM report, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/world/middleeast/28qaeda.html
Posted by: FB Ali | 27 September 2010 at 10:14 PM
Jane,
"We" if you mean the neocons, you are correct. There were plenty of warnings prior to the invasion.
'It is important that the minority be fairly treated or there will be unrest..."
So that's why the first intifada started!
Posted by: Fred | 27 September 2010 at 10:23 PM