April 20, 2007

Sunni Tribes Form Alliance Against Insurgents

I missed this story this morning, so I'm glad Allahpundit linked to it. It gives me an opportunity to make amends for the Gaubatz story below with some good news from Iraq. Sunni tribal chiefs plan on forming an anti-insurgent political party in Anbar, reflecting the success the US has had against al-Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of AQI against the local people:

A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's political process.

The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.

The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha, said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting, scheduled for 2009.

One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court system in Ramadi, the provincial capital.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the security situation in Anbar has shown real improvement. Some of that improvement comes from the efforts of the local tribes, but that wouldn't be possible if the US hadn't started its new strategy of clearing and holding territory and establishing credibility in its commitment. The Marines that have boosted their numbers in Anbar have made believers out of the locals.

Now the sheikhs have given their blessings to recruitment for the Iraqi Army, which has up to now been a mainly Shi'ite force. The Sunni recruits will help to balance the security forces and bolster that group's credibility in Iraq as a whole. It's the only way that Iraq in the long run can hold itself together.

It's a start, and a good piece of news to wrap up the week.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sunni Tribes Form Alliance Against Insurgents:

» Sunni Tribes Form Alliance Against Insurgents from NoisyRoom.net
Courtesy of Captain’s Quarters: I missed this story this morning, so I’m glad Allahpundit linked to it. It gives me an opportunity to make amends for the Gaubatz story below with some good news from Iraq. Sunni tribal chiefs plan on formi... [Read More]

Comments (15)

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 11:05 PM

Sen. Reid is probably looking for a way to cut off their tribal funds right now.

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 11:19 PM

Apparently, Harry Reid, didn't the the memo. He's still stuck in the lost cause mode. Every Democrat should be ashamed that he is their party's representative. He's reprehensible, despicable; there aren't enough words to describe my feelings for this sleazy sub-human.

Does his "we've lost" ejaculation really resonate with the majority?????

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 11:32 PM

The behaviors of the arabs, themselves, burned up a lot of American goodwill.

And, since people link to Michael Totten; you get another picture, really. One where the Kurds are doing well. And, Kirkuk, which is ostensibly Kurdish, does not.

Totten explains that Kirkuk, and its oil fields, lay in the valley. While the Kurds in Iraq live UP in the surrounding hills.

To push them out of Kirkuk, Saddam "imported" shi'a arabs. And, here is were there is still a lot of violence. Intercine warfare; and brother killling brother is not just some old Biblical lore.

And, Bush? He made mistakes.

He made mistakes on the promises he made, going in. And, then we got to see Chalabi, looting. And, Paul Bremer's year an absolute disgrace.

Even the constitution the Iraqis designed, does not come close to the Constitution General MacArthur wrote for the Japanese. Where he also created a world of trust. And, didn't wear a gun on the side of his pants. That Japanese LOVED HIM! Truman, did not. Truman kept trying to call MacArthur home for a parade.

MacArthur was adamant. He was staying in Japan for a full five years; to make sure democracy was implemented.

Here? Bush provided a few free passes to the Saud's.

Is Maliki being pushed?

Sure. Events in America look bleak now, for Iraq. Most people have upped and left George Bush's theater.

So, ultimately, what happens in Iraq, will be up to the people, there. Just like after we exited Vietnam. Things got worse in Vietnam, you say. And, I say you're pointing out the obvious. But the American soldiers had no friends, there.

I even think this "thing" with the Cho kid, kicks over the rock where Americans were killed by the civilians. And, not just in Vietnam. But in korea, before that.

So, we've got one success story! JAPAN.

Meager success with the German's, I'm sorry to say.

And, England and France are bankrupt. Run by an elite core that essentially could care less about democracy.

Lots of people hang out now, alone. And, lots of them have picked themselves up from their seats, once they got disgusted with Bush. And, they've left the theater.

You can't do much about the loss of support. And, it's a poor substitute to blame Dan Rather. Dan Rather isn't causing Bush's problems. Bush's hard-headedness has caused him these troubles.

Somewhat of a good thing. I'd hate to see a palestinian terror state emerging; while Jews are thrown out of their homes. But you can't convince Bush of a thing. He doesn't know how to say "ONLY WHEN THE TERROR STOPS."

Seems to say suchh a thing would anger the Saudis. And, they're still expecting payoffs to work in their favor. Ah. Just as it did after Gulf War #1. (We left an arsenal behind for the Kuwaitis. As if they've ever shown appreciation!)

Americans aren't stupid. Bush, #41, got butt kicked out of office. This Bush? He had a longer run. But just like in vaudeville, the crowd's up and left the theater.

Will all of our military goodies go to the Saud's? Why? Why not just hand this stuff to the Israelis? They live in that pig sty of the world.

But James Baker is a deal maker.

He also destroyed Reagan's good deeds. And, he saw to it that Bush #41 got butt kicked out of office. You may think he cared. I don't.

But it's not as easy, now.

Who knows what happens when tables' turn?

As to the Iraqis, Bush schmeared, easily $10-billion dollars around for reconstruction. And, every single dime got stolen.

Arabs don't have laws! They've got a society that treats contracts like toilet paper. And, they lie straight into your face.

So what has this "adventure" produced?

Some changes. Good ones for the Kurds. And, we're not out of there, so fast, either. Given that Turkey wants to run in and destroy the Kurds. But can't. Not quite. Too worried the Pershmega would clean their clocks.

Still, those borders were drawn with crayons; after WW1. And, they're just lines. WIthout regard for the different peoples that got gloamed together.

What worked? Well, if you want to call Saddam's terror as something that worked, I think you'd miss the point.

But you also won't stop arabs from being arabs.

Alas, General MacArthur is dead.

Still, you'd learn a lot if you just saw how good leadership can lead savages out of their slumber; and into productive society.

If Bush fails? He's a real idiot. Because at least Truman didn't fail at that!

Posted by WryCoder [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 20, 2007 11:45 PM

I wouldn't dismiss that Gaubatz story out of hand. There were a number of independent reports relating to movement of WMD to Syria around the time we entered Iraq. See the link I posted in the comments.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 12:22 AM

There's a WALL going up. 3 miles long. In Baghdad's worst neighborhood. To separate out the sunnis from the shi'a.

There really is no other way to reduce the violence.

The link is up at Drudge.

Seems, it started being built, in darkness, April 10th. And, should be completed at the end of this month.

This, too, is part of the surge.

What else can you do?

We're not exiting Iraq like we did Saigon.

And, all the fall off of support came to Bush because he hasn't been able to galvanize lots of Americans.

A few months ago; eating out; I overheard a young couple out on a date. And, she said to him, that she knew he was a republican. And, he replied: "yeah. But I hate Bush."

No, I'm no longer surprised.

I don't think this "halps" the donks, either. Since people who left Bush's audience have not "gone over to the other side."

It just IS.

Baghdad will be better off as soon as cement surrounds the sunni neighborhood. Why?

Because the Shi'a were going in and killing civilians. And, the sunni's would then attack the Shi'a. To stop the carnage, you build walls.

Posted by Gary Gross [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 12:32 AM

I wrote about the sheiks in this post. Also included in that post is Ted Kennedy denying that the Democrats' plan is for surrender. Good luck defending yourself on that, Sen.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 12:32 AM

Where the WMD story breaks down is that Saddam had no delivery system. Whatever he may have had in his bunkers, got buried in the sand. Are are now useless.

We haven't heard the whole thing, yet. But, according to Paul O'Niell, Bush got into office in 2000, and immediately requested plans to execute a military engagement with Saddam. That's a fact. Not a lie.

WHen I heard it, though. I thought the president gets all sorts of military "plans." Heck, I'd bet we even have some where we could invade England. Doesn't me its operational, though.

ANd, Bush didn't go into Iraq until after 9/11. For a time? He had a lot of people on board.

THis is no longer the case.

Bush, himself, never made a good argument for anything. And, separate from his WMD claims, you've also heard him say, and Condi, repeat. That he wants to see a palestinian state born while he's in office. Very pushy. Not too bright.

Bush also attempted to show contempt (diplomatically speaking) for Olmert. At one point, Israel was told it's not a first class nation. And, Bush wouldn't take Olmert's calls. He'd have to speak to Condi at state. Instead? Olmert doesn't say anything at all except that he emits FOG.

Fog works when you've got a lousy hand. And, you don't want to see Israel labelled as an agressor.

Bush broke one of the rules of Sun Tzu. He manages to go to bed at night with more enemies than he had when he woke up in the morning. (Look it up. The rule is there!)

As to Gonzales, if this is his chance to prove he's presidential, it's falling short. Gonzales is, unfortunately, OBVIOUSLY incompetent!

But then? When Hillary said "she was standing by her man," we all laughed.

The laughter is coming around, again. Gonzales should NEVER have been offered the job of AG!

But that's Bush.

WMD's? The bigger problem is that we went in on the offensive, before the USA was attacked. That's the new one. That's the one thing we never did, before.

Okay. The CIA tried to kill Castro. Today? Castro's dead, anyway. But the myth of living, abounds. Every state, it seems, has learned the art of putting garbage IN to the media system.

Doesn't surprise me that we get garbage OUT.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 2:18 AM


Michelle has a good piece up at her site. Here is a small excerpt.

Lieberman slaps Reid: "We should not surrender in the face of barbarism"
By Michelle Malkin · April 20, 2007 09:03 PM

Statement from Sen. Joe Lieberman:

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today made the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is "lost:"

"This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is 'lost.'

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."


Now, get a load of Reid's response to Lieberman. Make sure you are not drinking or eating anything. And if you have high blood pressure, do not read any further:

Friday, after Lieberman made his remarks, Reid struck again.

"The longer we continue down the President's path," the majority leader told colleagues in a Senate floor speech, "the further we will be from success."

He also pointed out that Democrats generally agree with him.

"In an effort to shift attention from this Administration's failed polities – and I say that in the plural – the President and his allies have repeatedly questioned whether I and my fellow Democrats support our troops," the majority leader told fellow senators. "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war.

Democrats are 100% invested in an American defeat. Democrats have and will continue to obstruct this war in every way they can, including sending Pelosi to have strategy meetings with our enemies & cutting off the funding for our troops. Harry Reid can make a statement as ridiculous as the one listed above; his Constituants want to believe those words so badly.

GW Bush told us from the very beginning "this will be a war unlike any other war America has fought, this enemy wears no uniform; this enemy resides in many places, many countries; this war will require the patience of the American people; this war will be tough and will go on for years." Four years later, I can't find any errors with those statements. The only thing Bush left out in that speech just days after our homeland was attacked, was the part about how Americans would be tested by the American media with negative war news 24/7 - 365, just as they did during Vietnam, and how the Democratic Party would work directly with our enemy with hopes of an American defeat at the hands of GW Bush. Those things Bush warned us of have proven to be true enough, problem is that he failed to warn (remind) us of this other information that he most certainly knew at the time.

Yes CE, there is good news coming out of Iraq every day along with the hideous murdering, and it is getting reported occasionally at sites such as CQ; milblogs are reporting the news (both good and not so good) every day. I love the wide variety to topics you choose CE, don't get me wrong. I also have a few milblogs I read every day just to get some real perspective on the war. These guys "speak freely & tell it like it is", unlike those with an agenda (old media).

Posted by Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 3:28 AM

WryCoder, IIRC the stories were about WMDs moving to Syria on Russian trucks and aircraft before the invasion, during the time we wasted trying to get the UN to be useful for once. Seems to me those stories contradict the Garbautz story line.

I added an excerpt and link to my 2007.04.21 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 5:50 AM

Sez Dingy Harry:

No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war.

Um, if declaring that we've lost the war is support, could you please not support the troops and our country quite so much?


What a tightrope the democrat scum in Congress have to walk! Poor, poor Dingy! What's a modern-day Benedict Arnold to do? Despite the propoganda from the left, there is still a very sizable fraction of Americans who want to win and think we can. He can't piss them off because he doesn't want them to blame his treasonous party when Iraq turns into another Killing Fields and (gasp!) terrorist continue to attack us even after we surrender.

On the other hand, he's got the deep-pocketed loonies on the far left, the moveon.org and ANSWER and Cindy Sheehan crowd, who want nothing less than utter, complete, and total defeat... for George Bush. The way to get that, in their twisted minds, is to declare defeat in Iraq, pull out, and blame it all on Bush.

Poor, poor Dingy Harry. What to do? What to do?

He hasn't got the guts (because he knows he hasn't got the votes) to take the option that the Constitution gives him, i.e. cut off funding. So, he dithers, threatens, makes outrageous statements that sound more like something from Lord Haw-Haw or Radio Hanoi rather than from a US Senator, one day hectors the president, the next day refuses to meet with him, and in general tries to appease both sides: the Americans who want to try to win vs. the terrorists and their allies here at home who want very much for us to lose.

It's been said before, but I say it again:


Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 7:14 AM


Here are a few related stories worthy of reading.


A few excerpts:

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.

General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.

Senator Reid claims to be a legislator who knows how to compromise, but he needs to realize his repeated comments are having an extremely negative impact on our troops, their families and our allies around the world. You can't support the troops without supporting what it is they do. In a combat zone that translates into one word: the mission.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 9:04 AM

...."The debate in Congress ... has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited," Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact ... in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

That's Robert Gates. Of course I don't have any proof that this story is tied to the congressional debate, but I've been of the opinion for a while that some sort of timetable seemed necessary to get the Iraqis to step up and own their country.

We've been there four years now. If Iraqis are not ready to stand up and defend this government by now, I don't see what good staying in Iraq will do. If we start to show we're leaving, they just may say "we better get our act together or else this country is going to FUCKED." The only way we're going to know if Iraq will be successful is to start drawing down. And I don't mean immediate withdrawal, but START pulling troops out. Have a vague guideline of a year or two. Basically, implement the Baker plan, which was completely ignored by this administration.

Keeping a large force in Iraq to fight the insurgency just for an indefinite amount of time just doesn't seem to make sense to me. The insurgency will not go away with the US in there. It's just not. We're not going to "beat it."

The Iraqis are going to have to come to a political solution, at least so that the insurgency is greatly lessened. I don't think that political solution will come if we keep an open-ended commitment (or at least starting to draw down troops give the political process a giant kick and pants).

As far as Reid's comment, it was just stupid. I've never really liked him. Not a good leader. He has a knack of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, which is a very bad trait for a politician. I'd much rather see someone like Feingold in that role.

Posted by Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 10:41 AM

Keeping a large force in Iraq to fight the insurgency just for an indefinite amount of time just doesn't seem to make sense to me. The insurgency will not go away with the US in there. It's just not. We're not going to "beat it."

Tom. do you see the insurgency in an all out, (or even partial) attack against our US forces? No-----they are still in modus of blowing up any and all Iraqis. Two months into taking ground and holding thruout Baghdad-----is WORKING. The Al-Qaeda and the insurgents are at each others throats and our military are running them like rats right out of town.

Keeping a large force in Iraq to fight the insurgency just for an indefinite amount of time just doesn't seem to make sense to me. The insurgency will not go away with the US in there. It's just not. We're not going to "beat it."

This statement could have just as well come out of Harry Reid's mouth.

The democrats political agenda just doesn't fit with a more stable Iraq, (Baghdad and the principal areas). Their "timeline" must fit within the electoral process here in the U.S., and they could give a rat's ass about the security of the Iraqi people.

It's quite appearent that "support of our troops" by the democratic party is an outright proclamation of defeat to our enemies----for only political gain. Disgraceful and shameful at best.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 3:00 PM

First. I don't give a crap what Harry does.

I find it silly to go name calling people who aren't people I'd vote for. Bunch of hooligans lining up to name call, though, is nothing new to politics.

The best way, when voters are dropping off the Bush bandwagon like flies; is to figure out what's wrong with HIS road show!

In the theatre, when you have out-of-town try-outs, the writers, and directors, tune in to see where they can fix what's broken. On a very expensive production. They want to bring to Broadway.

On Broadway the critics could destroy your show!

It didne't help if you then went out on the street, to point to another theater, and claim they were making money selling garbage.

Go out to dinner on any night, and you'll discover lots of places you can point to, that's open. Selling garbage.

But, here? If you have an interest in politics. one that expands to include history. Then, something is going on now, where the GOP "ship" is listing.

Complaining about the democrats, who are not on any visible super-yacht, is to waste your energies.


Like sororities in high school You might think there's benefits in "belonging." But you'd be surprised. Very few of those inside the sororities are anything more than bullies. And, life has it's own lessons in store for them. Nothing pretty.

Yes. The democrats have an agenda.

Been a long time since I've seen people buying it, though. They're kind'a out there like the old Edsels. Stuck in showrooms. ANd, pee-lousy? Got in one of them cars. Her's is called the "Speaker's" model. SHe turned the key on. And, blew right out of the showroom. She didn't even look for a "user's manual."

Nor did Corzine. When he went toodling about in an official car. (Turns out he was racing to see Don Imus, if you can believe?) And, instead? While he was NOT wearing a seatbelt, his car, hit the guardrail while his driver was pressing on the gas. Going 91 miles per hour.

Cozine offers you an example of PHYSICS at work.

Just having an important job title doesn't prevent you from having accidents on the road.

Accidents. My gosh. It's so hard to get puppies to understand that your best rugs are not places to evacuate, onto. But then, humans have voices.

And, sometimes? We prevail.

Your rantings don't do a thing to the democraps. They're in another ship.

But the disgorgement of passengers on the GOP vessel has been loud. And, clear.

Afraid to talk about that, huh?

I don't substitute FOG for truth.

Bush had a plan. And, every day it looks like his plan was to give the Saudis MORE of the Mideast, than most of the players, there, want these criminals to have.

IF the Saudi plan was hot? It wouldn't have been blown out of the water in 1992. (When the Israelis went to Oslo! When a lot of Israelis were actually hoping for peace.)

Iraq? I think most of the people are glad that Saddam is gone. Just like in Germany, now, lots of germans are glad hitler's dead. And, he didn't die a hero.

Actually, Americans have paid attention to this stage. That's why Bush is in trouble, here.

The donks? Missed the boat. But it seems, with Bush captaining this thing down river, he decided to name his ship The Titanic.

He'll pay. In the long run.

Americans are looking for something better!

They're also looking to see better things across this land, in our schools. Especially the colleges and universities. Clipping men's testicles, so they can "get along" in a sea full of affirmative action hires, is gonna have blow back to it. Whether you scream at poor, hapless, not on the right track, Harry Reid. Or not.

Cozine, too. Has a full recovery to make, ahead. Sap, that he was, to eschew seat belts. I guess Princess Diana, getting killed in a car, didn't teach him a single lesson.

Well, for some? Helmet laws are torture.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 21, 2007 4:43 PM

You wingers still don't get it. The Iraqis are the only ones that can stabalize Iraq. Our army can't. Wingers think brute military force can solve POLITICAL PROBLEMS. It can't. Reid was right, the war is lost, has been for about 2 years. Were just in a holding pattern right now. More US troops are dying and Maliki is only concerned with the Shia dominating the government. I'm glad the Sunni sheiks are killing Al Queda in Anbar, the scum deserve a horrible death. But unless Maliki shares the oil wealth those same sheiks won't be happy for long. Before anybody gets to cocky about some good news better read up on how Turkey wants to create a 30 mile wide buffer zone INSIDE OF IRAQ to keep Kurdish rebels from making raids in Turkish borders and riling up the Turkish Kurds. Now were building cement walls inside Baghdad to separate Shia from Sunni???? What, like the Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China? Divide the country into 3 mini-states and get our boys out of that civil war that Bush blundered into.