Surprise: Some Iraqi gunmen have held their fire

[JoFerret]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/11cush.html
<<WASHINGTON — If political power grows from the barrel of a gun, then every armed Iraqi has a stake in the transfer of authority that is supposed to take place there in 11 weeks. But so far, one of the most important armed groups in Iraq has not plunged into the wild uprisings that spread last week.

Even as the rebellious Mahdi militia of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric, took over government buildings and streets in several towns, and even as it claimed to have forged a common fight with rebellious Sunnis in central Iraq, another, larger, better trained and equally ardent Shiite force, the Badr militia, seemed mainly to stand aside. It could now play a profound role in setting Iraq's future.

If the Badrs continue to withhold support from the Mahdi insurrection, or act to block it, they might gain more power under constitutional rule. But their appearance on the battlefield as rebels would greatly complicate the task of restoring order.

Until a week or so ago, the American-led military coalition seemed to have little trouble keeping a lid on Iraq's militias, despite sporadic violence by other insurgents.

But the expected transition to Iraqi political leadership has now proved destabilizing. >>

<more>

[jpak]

1. The Khmer Rouge were a little known and insignificant

guerrilla faction before Nixon and Kissinger invaded Cambodia.

Makes ya' wonder....

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. and no one had ever heard of the Viet Cong before we made

them the big spooky bad man

[mike_c]

4. Umm, I suspect the French would take exception to that remark.

Dien Bien Phu and all that....

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. Not Viet Cong.... Viet Minh.... which became the North VietNam

Politboro.

Different animals all together.

[lumpy]

6. The French imperilists

were run out of Vietnam by the Viet Kong Vietnamese. The Vietcong made it very uncomfortable for the French so they decided to jump ship and say to hell with it.

[markses]

7. "Viet Cong" was a derogatory name designed by the Saigon gov't

Roughly equivalent to "Vietnamese Commie." No "Viet Cong" ever called him or herself a "Viet Cong," in other words. We literally made up the name. The proper name is the NLF, or National Liberation Front - and there's even a more specific name, since the NLF considered itself a more general political party, with the armed branch being what we call the "Viet Cong."

Similarly, NVA, or "North Vietnamese Army," is inaccurate as well - or at least only tells one side of the story. There was NEVER a country called "North Vietnam," just as there was never a country called "South Vietnam." Neither government ever officially relinquished its claim to the other's territory. The Final Declaration at Geneva that ended the French Indochina War explicitly states that the 17th parallel does not constitute a territorial border. It was merely meant as a temporary demarcation line for the cessation of hostilities between the French and their allies and the Viet Minh. For this reason, the correct name of the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (so-called North Vietnam) is the PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam), while the correct name for the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam (so-called South Vietnam) is the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam). Anybody using "NVA" is using a false construction designed for propaganda purposes.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

8. That is true, my point was there is a difference from the Viet Minh

and the Viet Cong. They are frequently called the same.
Of course there were Viet Minh who came south to help run the Viet Cong, NLF if you wish.

The Viet Minh were true agrarian revolutionaries, and were not opposed to working with other governments, while the Viet Cong were thugs, terrorists and drug runners bent on anarchy and mayhem. Especially in the countryside.

[mmonk]

2. The big question is

who controls events?

[54anickel]

9. What a cluster-f*ck!! Who are we fighting? From the article -

In fact, the armed contestants for power in Iraq are numerous. They include the American-led army of occupation; tens of thousands of hired security guards; the fledgling and largely toothless Iraqi army and police; militia groups linked to political parties and religious factions; faceless terrorists, foreign fighters, former Baathists and frustrated former soldiers; and ordinary Iraqis of every persuasion or none.

snip>

As the governing council grows, it will need to exert more control over Iraq's men in arms. Given the poor condition and performance so far of the new Iraqi security forces, the Americans and the interim government have agreed in principle that the coalition army will continue to operate as it sees fit for months to come.

But because of the power vacuum, there is now the risk of a chain reaction, with other militants jumping into the chaos. Of particular interest is the Badr militia, controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. It has been supported for decades by Iran and is in sympathy with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful cleric, though not controlled by him. It acquiesced in the American invasion to get rid of Mr. Hussein, but has resisted demands that it disarm. Technically, the occupation forces have outlawed it.

Unlike the Sadr organization, the political party that controls the Badr militia is represented on the governing council. The party's longtime leader, Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, was assassinated last August; his brother, Abdel Aziz, holds the council seat.

In addition, the party's forces have a substantial presence in Najaf, where Mr. Sadr was holed up last week. They would probably have to acquiesce if the American-led coalition is to reassert itself there. At best, from the American point of view, they might help drive out Mr. Sadr's Mahdis. At worst, their numbers might reinforce his cause.