Shiite Bloc Condemns U.S. Policy Of Recruiting Sunni Tribesmen

[cal04]

Source: Washington Post

The largest Shiite political coalition in Iraq demanded Tuesday that the U.S. military abandon its recruitment of Sunni tribesmen into the Iraqi police, saying some are members of "armed terrorist groups" and are engaged in killing, kidnapping and extortion under the guise of fighting the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The statement by the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite bloc of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is the most direct rebuke to a policy that U.S. military officers hold up as one of their most important achievements over the past year.

U.S. forces have given wide support to thousands of Sunni tribesmen across the country who have pledged to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. officials describe the effort as promoting grass-roots reconciliation that brings disenfranchised Sunnis into the government and provides protection for their neighborhoods.

(snip)
"We condemn and reject embracing those terrorist elements which committed the most hideous crimes against our people," the United Iraqi Alliance statement said. It also condemned "authorizing the groups to conduct security acts away from the jurisdiction of the government and without its knowledge."


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202380.html

[robinlynne]

1. edited. I can't think of a good enough word.....

[sabra]

2. this is a big deal... k & r

:kick:

[Igel]

3. Probably.

But I'm still not sure it's a bad deal.

As one pundit put it, there are two sides. One is saying, "I'm losing, so how can I compromise?" The other, however, is saying, "I'm winning, so why should I compromise?"

It doesn't matter who's on top, the person temporarily winning makes the assumption he will actually win, and adopts the 'winner' attitude. The person temporarily losing makes the assumption that any compromise will cement his loss, and takes the 'losing' attitude.

Get them even, show them neither is winning or losing--or make sure 'winning' for one side means 'balance'--and then you can get honorable compromise. It's unlikely that one will submit to receive the other's largesse, or that the winning side will feel disposed to grant its mercy in the near future.

This might be a sign that this alliance--one that, no doubt, had problems with arming those killing unarmed Sunnis and doing all the other things that they mustn't allow Sunnis to do--is feeling that it may stop being the winning side in the very near future. Then the problem will be making them feel that they're not losing....