Will the Iraqi Govt. via US Regime regain Anbar province?

[Disturbed]

The Washington Post reports that Col. Pete Devlin's assessment, written in mid-August, also says that "there is almost nothing the US military can do to improve the political and social situation there."

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically – and that's where wars are won and lost." The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. ...

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0911/dailyUpdate.html

That's 50,000 sq. miles of Iraq controlled by al Q. A Hell of a lot more territory than al Q. controlled in Afghanistan. Americans won't hear or read much about this and the Busholini Regime are accountable for it.

[Kagemusha]

1. The thing is, it's not Al Qaeda controlling it for real, only in name.

The real power in Anbar Province is still the domestic insurgency, powered by former Baathist officers who ran the real parts of the military like the Republican Guard and who fought Iran for years. If the US wants to think it's Al Qaeda, the native Iraqis aren't going to dissuade that misinterpretation. I point this out because the fact it's native Iraqis powering this makes it even worse than what these American officers are stating.

[Disturbed]

2. Ah...yes it is worse that the Insurgency controls this

territory because the people living there are more supportive of native Iraqis than outsiders that al Q mostly consists of.

[Igel]

3. I don't think I agree.

The reports, both US and international, that have come out of Anbar and other Salafist-dominated areas are consistent: Instead of a secular Baathist system set up, there are sharia courts, and restrictions not on Salafists but on non-Salafists, including the secular folk. This strikes me as a cynical ploy if done primarily by the Baathists. They bribed and encouraged tribal and Salafist tendencies to cement their control in the '90s, but this seemed mostly a dodge, a chicken that was producing lots of chicks that would eventually come home to roost once the bribe-money ran out.

This is less true for Tikrit and other less Salafist areas, where ethnic-Sunni nationalism (if I may warp the definition of the terms to make them compatible in such an expression) seems to be primary.

[Kagemusha]

4. I'm sure there's a lot of local flavor. I might've been overly broad.

But, I can't find very accurate information about what the hell's really going on in Anbar these days so it's hard to say...

Besides, the Baathists themselves were said to be moving towards Islam a lot because it was the real game in town now with Saddam gone. I was too simplistic in suggesting that the Baathist ex military officers are all still fighting the old cause. But, regardless, they bring their military experience and training with them, which is more valuable than most of that possessed by the Shiites who served in Saddam's pre-disintegration military.

It's just that calling it all Al-Qaeda is lending "Al Qaeda" itself far more weight than deserved. That said, clearly, political islam is on the rise among Sunnis, whether or not it's really "Al Qaeda" or something more native.

[Disturbed]

5. Instead of Iraq breaking apart in three territories

it may break up in a lot of regions out of the control of the central Govt. The US Military will not be able to contain control for the Iraqi Govt.

[Igel]

6. I can agree that AQ is

a bit player--responsible for some rather impressive events, but only for some events.

If Baathists are becoming Islamists, then there's no point in discussing them, except to the extent they know infrastructure and have contacts. But they don't seem to be leaders in this; the low-level grunts were always that, grunts, paid for (but never bought ... just rented).