Patterico's Pontifications

4/5/2007

Skeikhs Tattle and Roll Al Qaeda in Al-Anbar

Filed under: General — See Dubya @ 1:28 am



(A post by See-Dubya)

There’s a long piece by a father and son team at Opinionjournal about the implementation of the Patriquin Plan (they don’t call it that) in Anbar province, Iraq. That’s the plan, of course, where the sheiks get involved on behalf of the US against the insurgents, leveraging one of the few solid civil-society networks still functioning there. The sheiks provide information about al-Qaeda infiltrators, and the U.S. scoops ’em up. Patterico’s been pushing this plan quite a while, as has Teflon Don.

I’m not sure whether this is the story of same sheik and the same incidents being told yet again, but even if it is, his success is ongoing and it’s a cause for optimism. It’s hard, for example, to argue with an endorsement like this:

In recent weeks, al Qaeda has struck back with suicide bombers, blowing up a Sunni mosque in the young sheik’s area, killing 40 worshipers, and then detonating a series of chlorine truck bombs in residential neighborhoods outside Fallujah. They hope that if they murder random groups of women and children, the tribes will fall back in line. These tactics have locked AQI in a fight to the death against the tribal leaders. It reflects an enemy who has lost popular support for his jihad, clinging to fear alone. Had any American analyst predicted AQI would attack local Sunnis with weaponized chemicals nine months ago, he would have been laughed at.

If that’s an accurate assessment, it explains a lot about those mysterious chlorine attacks. Why would AQI risk alienating the populace it seeks shelter and support from by such hideous attacks?

If I’m reading this article right, it’s like two big puzzle pieces clicking together. Answer, according to West and West, is that the Patriquin plan is working too well and united the people against AQI already. Al Qaeda had no goodwill left to lose, so they are trying intimidation instead.

I hope this continues to work, but I’m going to say something in the CPA’s defense. Major Patriquin said that initially, they were banned from working with the sheikhs in this way due to CPA orders, written by “25 year olds from Texas, and Paul Bremer”, and it insisted on working with elected officials only.

I completely understand their caution. From a military and counterinsurgency standpoint, relying on the sheikhs makes all kindsa sense. From a long-term political standpoint it’s dicey. Not all Arab sheikhs are so accommodating to US interests as this fine fellow in Al-Anbar. What’s more, sheikhdom is an anti-democratic force. Sheikhs aren’t elected, they aren’t accountable, and their power is based on tradition and not on merit or loyalty to the country. They are, in effect, a hereditary aristocracy…which is something meritocratic democracy is opposed to. (I can imagine Christopher Hitchens pitching a real hissy-fit about this sort of thing.)

If we are trying to make Iraq a democracy, the CPA was right to be concerned about political involvement by sheikhs, and giving them real permanent political and quasi-military powers seemed like a dangerous gamble. In 2004, it made sense not to do this and their reticence was prudent.

Now things have changed. The security situation is paramount; for any decent government to succeed there the bombs need to stop going off and the heads need to stay on shoulders. While I don’t go so far as the James Baker/ Iraq Study Group contention that we need to run blubbering to Iran and Syria crying make it stop! make it stop!, it is way past time to cut deals with anyone who can help us get the insurgency under control.

And the political situation might benefit as well. These aristocratic sheikhs may frustrate populist and sectarian putschs and machinations of Sadr and the like. Whereas before the thinking was, “oh no, the sheiks will act as a counterweight to Iraqi democracy!”, perhaps now the proper reaction is “hooray! the sheikhs will act as a counterweight to Iraqi democracy!”

It sounds like they could use a few checks and balances over there; while a politically empowered nobility of sheikhs is certainly not what I had in mind for Iraq, it’s pretty obvious that we could do much, much worse.

Cross-posted at Junkyard Blog.

12 Responses to “Skeikhs Tattle and Roll Al Qaeda in Al-Anbar”

  1. And the political situation might benefit as well. These aristocratic sheikhs may frustrate populist and sectarian putschs and machinations of Sadr and the like. Whereas before the thinking was, “oh no, the sheiks will act as a counterweight to Iraqi democracy!”, perhaps now the proper reaction is “hooray! the sheikhs will act as a counterweight to Iraqi democracy!”

    I’m not sure why anyone saw this as a problem, unless you got your history education in government schools. That exact model has worked tremendously well for a thousand years. We refer to them as the House of Lords and the House of Commons of Great Britain, and at least some of Britain’s problems are that the balance of power has tilted too far towards the Commons.

    SDN (1d2568)

  2. SDN – Well, a lot of us DID attend public k-12, and if my history-major-turned-economist instructor is any indication, it continues in college as well, regardless of where you go…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  3. Agree that it is preferable to work with elected officials, but somehow it seems MORE preferable to accept reality. The sheiks have power and influence. It doesn’t matter why they have it, they have it. And it obvious that they have more influence (i.e., trust)than the elected government. It is likely they have more power in a smaller sphere of influence. Yes, the Iraqi army could probably crush any individual sheik, but probably not all. And the ensuing chaos would potentially topple the Maliki government.

    That being the case, use every possible means of influencing the outcome. The only reason that the naysayers will object is because it raises the chances of success. And as the President said, as the enemy become more desperate, he will use more extreme measures. Oh, I’m sorry. He was talking about Al Qaeda. Or was he?

    Scott (412f3f)

  4. The problem that was had in “working only with elected officials” is that the Sunni’s had by and large boycotted the elections, making Sunni’s in elected positions unlikely. So the most active locals were un-involved in the official system.

    Had there been Sunni’s in elected positions, this change to “work with the sheikhs” most likely wouldn’t have been needed. But that’s the past, and the new way is working at levels I don’t know they could have hoped for.

    I’m hopeful about the situation, and pray that it continues in this direction. Down with AQI and up with the Iraqi People!!

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  5. Web Reconnaissance for 04/05/2007…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

    The Thunder Run (59ce3a)

  6. For the record, I just saw on one of my feeds that Time (in partnership with CNN) is running a bit titled America’s Broken-Down Army, which makes me really wish I subscribed to Time Magazine, so that I could call them and agrily cancle my subscription…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  7. “…at least some of Britain’s problems are that the balance of power has tilted too far towards the Commons.”

    That would mean that some of Britain’s problems are the result of it being a republic.

    AF (c319c8)

  8. First of all, Britain is not a republic. It’s a constitutional monarchy.

    Second, you cannot expect people who were ruled by a king and nobility for all their history to be capable all of a sudden of governing themselves. Especially when all the ones who had the desire and ability to govern themselves came to America generations ago.

    And then it could just be that their national decay is because of their horrible diet.

    nk (37b8ef)

  9. Darnit, SDN….that was my next post! I thought about writing in a House of Lords angle but the post was already too long and it was too late, so I figured I’d save it.

    See Dubya (8017ea)

  10. If that’s an accurate assessment, it explains a lot about those mysterious chlorine attacks. Why would AQI risk alienating the populace it seeks shelter and support from by such hideous attacks?

    Because terrorists are larval dictators. They mean to rule with the same kind of terror Saddam ruled with.

    jpm100 (851d24)

  11. Let’s face it, this is just another demonstration that “Lord Bremer” and the CPA was an absolute disaster. The big question is, who in the bureaucracy back in DC foisted this plague upon us and the Iraqi people?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  12. No, AF, they are the result of it becoming too much of a “democracy”. The Founders feared too much direct democracy (they called it “mobocracy”), and with good reason. It makes it far too easy for the non-productive to vote themselves endless bread and circuses from the public treasury. As an example, the lower 60% of incomes get more welfare than they pay in taxes. Link

    SDN (1d2568)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0809 secs.