"... mass killings of Sunni tribesmen battling the Islamic State have added urgency to Iraqi government efforts to support pockets of resistance against the militants. But distrust, a lack of financing and corruption threaten the process, tribesmen and officials say.
In a flurry of meetings in recent weeks, tribal leaders have demanded that Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi address problems of missing weapons and lack of support as they hold out against extremists in the face of mass detentions and executions. Hundreds of tribesmen have been summarily executed in the western province of Anbar over the past month, with hundreds more rounded up north of Baghdad.
The slayings have underscored the predicament of Sunni tribes that have resisted Islamic State extremists, often with little help from the central government. The killings threaten to undermine the government strategy of mobilizing the Sunni tribes against the Islamic State in the tribes’ areas — a key pillar in efforts to crush the militants.
“We demand that the government does something,” said Sheik Naim al-Gaoud, a tribal leader with the Albu Nimr. “We feel that we have been abandoned and neglected.”" Washpost
------------------
Let's be real about this. The notion of working with the Sunni Arab tribes of Iraq against the Islamists was always an American idea. The Shia run state that we Americans created has NEVER wanted to arm the Sunni tribes. The Shia see these tribesmen as their natural enemies. Both the sedentary and rural Shia think of the Sunni Arab tribesmen in much the same way that sheep think of wolves.
Our colleague, FB Ali, has expressed the belief that having been betrayed once by the Americans and more or less continously by the Shia led government the tribesmen would not rise against IS. His arguments were so cogent that I had been persuaded by them, But, behold! The Albu Nimr and other Sunni tribes want to fight to defend their way of life from the depredations and tyranny of IS. IS believes that the tribesmen are badly "infected" (from their point of view) with; Islamic folk religion, Sufism and tribal customary law practises. For a salafi, jihadi, wahhabi fighter, the tribesmen of Iraq are just more murtadoon (apostates). We all now by now what the fate of murtadoon is when they fall into the hands of IS.
We Americans should push the Baghdad government to one side and begin to directly support these tribesmen from bases in Jordan and the KAR. Without the tribes we will have little chance of stabilizing a containment and eventual roll back of IS. DOL pl
makosog
The Old Iraqi Army was exactly that. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 13 November 2014 at 02:22 PM
That reminds me of the old Cold War joke:
"The Russians will never attack the Pentagon, why should they, that would put an end to all that chaos, mismanagements and inefficiency."
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 02:24 PM
How can Kurdish regions of Turkey (or Iran or Syria) be granted self-government when the rest of that country is not?
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 02:26 PM
Will US or France or UK or Germany or Russia sell hundreds of tanks or helicopter gunships to Iran on credit?
I do not think so.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 02:27 PM
Babak Makkinejad,
What would they care about the fate of their hostage-cities of Mosul and Raqqa and Fallujah?
They would expect the unfortunate people of those cities to be grateful for instant martyrdom and a ticket to heaven.
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2014 at 03:15 PM
Elaine,
Wasn't Reagan the primary "Let's Arm the Muj" C.I.C.?
Though in all fairness it was Zbiggy-poo Brzezhinski who got the whole ball of dung rolling.
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2014 at 03:18 PM
Col Lang
I am going to posit a counter theory that the Obama administration has been changing its position on removing Assad ever since we did not bomb Syria for the CW false flag kerfuffle. President Obama asked for that AUMF knowing it would fail . Moreover all the talk about FSA etc is window dressing to keep Turkey , the Gulfies and KSA 'on side' until the liver eaters can be defeated. And I do not believe any AUMF will get passed that includes taking out Assad . We shall see.
Posted by: alba etie | 13 November 2014 at 03:33 PM
Well, I should think that would care to maintain their power.
They may not be in too much of a hurry to enter Heaven at any rate.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 05:12 PM
Let us hope so.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 05:57 PM
It is all about oi. oil and Israel. In 1949 When Getty gave Ibn Sauad 9.5 million, that also secured our involvement. I'm a died in the wool Democrat but if there were someone who was sincere about divesting the US from the ME, I would vote for them and I think my husband would also.
Posted by: Nancy K | 13 November 2014 at 07:40 PM
If the Baathists and Old Army people and Naqshbandi Order Army and Old Mukhabarat are all backing ISIS after all the atrocities ISIS commits/is committing against Sunni Arab tribal people for whom the Baathists etc. are said to allegedly care about; then I wonder to what extent "fighting ISIS" really means fighting all the older battle-hardened war-worthy groups. Have the Baathists etc. turned ISIS into something of an ISIS containment dome around a Baathist etc. core? If so, our SF soldiers would be fighting the whole Old Iraqi establishment as well as ISIS itself. How much more risk would that add?
What if some of the Old Army/Mukhabarat Iraqis remember Colonel Land and others as well as Colonel Lang and others remember them? What if some of those Old Iraqis are reading this blog right along to keep track of the thinking of people they learned to respect? Dare one assume they aren't reading this blog? And if they were, would there be any way to know what their computer addresses were so that one could know who among them was reading and tracking what line of thought here? So our SF soldiers could take counter-counter measures against whatever detailedly-informed counter-measures the Baathi etc. core might instruct their ISIS containment dome to take?
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2014 at 08:08 PM
Think I read somewhere that those in the Sunni area were Sunni dominated?
Posted by: makosog | 13 November 2014 at 09:18 PM
Protecting the kin of the raiders from ISIS retaliation will be a challenge.
Since they depend on agriculture or herding they are vulnerable because for that they'll need to move beyond their villages and towns.
Just like ISIS needs lines of communications, raiders need safehaven, a base of operations. The villages will need to be protected. Fortified?
Posted by: confusedponderer | 14 November 2014 at 02:28 AM
All:
From the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kurds-fight-islamic-state-to-claim-a-piece-of-syria-1415843557
"The U.S. between 2003 and 2011, when it had a large military presence in Iraq, would help Turkey coordinate airstrikes against Kurdish fighters and cracked down on the smuggling of weapons and ammunition to their camps in northern Iraq.
Now, the U.S. is defying Turkey to aid the same Kurdish fighters with arms and airstrikes in northern Syria. A dozen or so U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have also joined the YPG."
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 14 November 2014 at 08:35 AM
makosog
"those in the Sunni area were Sunni dominated?" Means what? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 November 2014 at 09:26 AM
It appears that makosog means to say that "the Old Iraqi Army garrisoned Sunni provinces (Anbar, etc) with Sunni troops" to avoid sectarian strife.
Posted by: 6th-generation Texan | 14 November 2014 at 06:09 PM
Actually I was thinking more along the lines
of 1st Lt Michael Behenna & many other honorable warriors.
Posted by: elaine | 15 November 2014 at 11:07 PM
You're probably right. Carter just rolled out the red carpet by boycotting the Winter Olympics &
getting the rumble talk going.
Posted by: elaine | 15 November 2014 at 11:14 PM
yet as Polk and everyone else now knows only the locals can really sort out any equilibrium there, whatever material we provide. . . to be looted later if not victoriously expended. They'll never recover unless left alone to sort it out, or be exterminated by savages, hence they'll never be left 101% alone by any meddlers or do-gooders, too much pain and opportunity so it'll go on ad nauseum.
Posted by: Charles I | 17 November 2014 at 06:29 PM
some would fight until the Chinese called in all their paper; Israel is counting on fighting - and you fighting - for decades more of Eretzian expansion and neighborly neutralization/destabilization.
Posted by: Charles I | 17 November 2014 at 06:32 PM
Yet Obama was still stating as of this weekend that we will not co-operate with Assad, never mind Iran, and that Assad must go, presumably after the god guys win.
Posted by: Charles I | 17 November 2014 at 06:49 PM