Is Disarming The Sunnis an Answer?

Today, Osama Bin Laden issued another of his MTV videos. This time he has called for al Qaeda in Iraq to wage war against the Shia, making it official: all he cares about now is starting an all out civil war between the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds in Iraq.

Today the Iraqi authorities added a bunch of brand-new scum bags to its most wanted list, and most were Saddam loyalists, including his daughter and wife, Raghad Saddam Hussein and Tifah Hussein. Saddam's daughter Raghad has been living in Jordan raising money for her father's defense and keeps busy by inciting the remnants of Saddam's forces to kill everybody that isn't with the Saddam program. His first wife Tifah has been living in Qatar pretty much doing the same thing. Both are regular contributors to that unbiased media outlet, Al Jazzera.

Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, however, tops the list. He has proven to be the biggest pain of all, and is now the most important figure that has to be eliminated, and the sooner the better. This scum bag was deputy commander of Iraq's armed forces under Hussein and was No. 6 on the U.S. military's original list of 55 most-wanted Iraqi officials that was released in 2003. .

Rounding out the bottom of the list is the new leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, who also goes by the name Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Since this guy is still a rookie butcher, his stock hasn't risen as much as the other scum bags yet.

However, one thing is apparent: The residual Saddamist, who are Sunni, and al Qaeda have now made killing innocent Shia and Kurd civilians more important that killing Coalition forces.

Now may be the time to begin thinking seriously of disarming every Sunni male over the age of 3 in the Sunni Triangle. The threat exists that if this were to occur then a Sunni bloodbath would occur, but it would then be the responsibility of the Iraq security forces to see that this doesn't happen, and if it does, then strike hard at the Shia militia once and for all.

In other words, divide the problem in two, attack into the ambush, pacify the Saddamist first, then work on the Shia militia.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at July 2, 2006 11:07 AM
Comments
Comment #164187

Eagle,

I am all for citizens owning weapons. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to disarm the scumbags. That is true here at home and anywhere else in the world. People doing bad things who have money will always find someone to help facilitate their evil deeds.

Posted by: lllplus2 at July 2, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #164200

I disagree SE. I don’t want to disarm the citizens of Iraq any more than I want to disarm citizens in the United States.

Posted by: tomd at July 2, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #164215

SE is pro gun control. What a laugh.

Posted by: gergle at July 2, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #164216

gergle

How silly you say that, I think. This is a war, and the Saddamist are the enemy. PLUS, in post-war Germany and Japan, the population was disarmed.

Tomd
There is no 2nd amendment issue here. This is a war zone. My suggestion is for military purposes.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #164226

You can’t disarm the citizens. You cannot tell criminals what to do since the law does not apply to them. How would you like be unable to defend your family against an intruder?

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 2, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #164229

Stubborn conservative

Note I said disarm those in the Sunni triangle. Most are still Saddam loyalists. There is nothing good that will happen when every household has an AK47.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #164230

All

For excellent insight into the Sunni Triangle mindset, I recommend Illaro Pantano’s book “Warlords” that just came out. It’s compelling reading.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #164238

SE

“There is nothing good that will happen when every household has an AK47.”

We won’t issue the people AK47s. They buy them on their own free will and we track each bought weapon. Our forces see an armed citizen walking around, then the citizen must produce papers proven that they bought the gun legally.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 2, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #164240

All

Buy Warlord and other liberal exposers

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416524266/103-8639720-1137415?v=glance&n=283155

(can’t get it to make a link)

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 2, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #164244

SE:

“Now may be the time to begin thinking seriously of disarming every Sunni male over the age of 3 in the Sunni Triangle. The threat exists that if this were to occur then a Sunni bloodbath would occur, but it would then be the responsibility of the Iraq security forces to see that this doesn’t happen, and if it does, then strike hard at the Shia militia once and for all.

This is an excellent plan, a worthy addition in the great pantheon of neo-con thinking. But, I have to admit, it does sound rather messy—instead of infuriating the Sunnis by emasulating them by taking away their weapons (notice how the NRA-types on the blog smell a rat),and putting them at the mercy of government ‘security forces’ that are riddled with militia that are commited to sectarian cleansing, why not just shoot them on sight. Sure, it’ difficult sometimes to ascertain who’s who over there, but I think you’d agree that it’s for a worthy cause.

Of course, some nay-sayers might opine that we’re doing the Shiite militas’ dirty work and hastening the day Iraq becomes a Shiite satellite of Iran. Just sour grapes—those people don’t know that when you run a world-wide operation, you have to expect losses.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 2, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #164245

Stubborn conservative

Good idea on registering guns. Something is necessary, I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #164246

tim crow

Nice thought. I am sure that disarming a population that was/is hostile is a novel idea.

The point is that there are two issues here…the Sunni Saddamist, and then the Shia militia that require two different remedies.

Now, you can continue to attack the administration’s policies,(which yor are quite good at by the way)or you can offer a good constructive solution in light of the fact that the current policy won’t change during this administration, or when a new Republican administration come in in ‘08.

Tell me, what do you suggest regarding the Saddam loyalists?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #164259

SE:

Spoke like a true occupier.

Only recently, we were celebrating “democracy” in Iraq. Do you want to ruin this great “democracy” by telling their leaders what to do?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 2, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #164261

SE:

Spoken like a true occupier.

Only recently, we were celebrating “democracy” in Iraq. Do you want to ruin this great “democracy” by telling their leaders what to do?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 2, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #164262

SE:

“Now, you can continue to attack the administration’s policies,(which yor are quite good at by the way)or you can offer a good constructive solution in light of the fact that the current policy won’t change during this administration, or when a new Republican administration come in in ‘08. Tell me, what do you suggest regarding the Saddam loyalists?”

You paint me into a corner by admitting that the failed US policy in Iraq won’t change for two and one half years then imply that if I don’t come up with some plan to make it better, I’m an obstructionist.

Let me present a novel idea to you. We’ve made a mess of the situation, our continued presence in that afflicted country perpetuates violence and enables the spawning of terrorists a reasonable person couldn’t have contemplated five years ago. My point is—the Saddamist loyalists are the Iraqi people’s problem, it isn’t ours. They would have had this problem if Iran had invaded, or the Martians. This Sunni/Shiite antipathy predates us by a 1000 years, and will be a reality long after we are gone.

They have to implement the policies and the programs that will eventually help their country to heal. They are the only people who can, and make the program stick!

This same false concern for possible civil war (which, to my mind is already underway) to prolong our involvement, was a tactic used by the British in India. If we leave, the Hindus and the Muslims will fall at each other’s throats—we can’t leave. As Gandhi said to the British, “It is our problem, not yours, and we will have to deal with it, not you.”

It is the only way, and any prolongation of this misery is on our heads, not the Iraqis. As each day passes, dozens more people die—perhaps they would die anyway once we leave. But as each week passes, and more people die, our nation’s motives for staying are losing their moral authority in the world’s eyes (which was always of dubious authenticity to begin with).

In short, the Saddamists in the end will be dealt with by the Iraqis—the problems the Saddam loyalists present cannot be effectively and permanently dealt with by us. We will leave Iraq, eventually, and the longer we stay, I believe, assures that the US will leave under terms not to our political or economic advantage.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 2, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #164271

“In other words, divide the problem in two,…”

SE, what’s your problem? why are you second-guessing Bush and Rummy and playing at being an armchair general? by implicitly criticizing US strategy you’re just dividing the country and giving hope to the enemy. do you hate America? do you want the terrorists to win?

Personally, my two-part solution to Iraq is first, vote out the incompetents who put us into this mess, and second, see what the US armed forces can accomplish when they’re not being run by a bunch of chicken hawk politicos.

Posted by: William Cohen at July 2, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #164275

There are plenty of what ifs in this battle, such as the question you have posed, “what if we disarm all the citizens in the sunni triangle?”
On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but if we dont know how they get the weapons and because we can’t track every Iraqi citizen, it seems like too little, and too much work, risk, to be considered effective.

Did you know that Iraq is 437,072 sq km making in a little bit smaller than Texas?

Would it be possible to quarrantine cities, and relocate Iraqi citizens to camps where they could be identified, fed, registered to vote, and questioned about education background and registered for work placement? During the time of relocation, our forces could sweep the city looking for Al-Qaeda cells and, or resistance sympathizers.

Just another what if that sounds more logical and effective than what you have proposed.

Posted by: stopculture at July 2, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #164277

The Iraqi’s should have been dis-armed years ago when the military had an opportunity after the fall of Baghdad. Had they done this and searched and destroyed weapons cache’s in the beginning of this terrible delimma of what to do next; we wouldn’t have the problems we have now. And anyway, yes, we could start now, if it’s feasible, and by that I mean if it’s possible with the forces we have available in Iraq.

Posted by: john at July 2, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #164289

Stopculture and John excellent points.

Looks like the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force wasn’t such a bad doctrine after all. The mess that has been created by this administration by not acting to quell the insurgency in the beginning, due to the hit an run tactics required by the undermanned forces, has made it clear they have no ideas for solving the problems created. They are married to their failed policies, because admitting the depth of their incompetence would lead to political suicide for the Republicans. Instead they have created another haven for terrorists while ignoring the problems in Afghanistan. They’ve helped to spread the “war on terror” that someone else will have to clean up. They count on blind cheerleading with silly ideas like gun control in Iraq. They don’t have enough troops to do the basics. General SE turns to Democratic violence quelling ideas, that most of us in America don’t even buy. The absurdity is laughable.

Maybe we should just Nuke the Sunni triangle and save the Shia the trouble. A few nutcases will go for that one.

Posted by: gergle at July 2, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #164294

Willian Cohen:

Hey, I LIKE Bush and Rummy,remember? Plus, what I am suggesting others in my party have said,thus, I divide nothing.

You voting out incumbents ,won’t work because ,well, it just won’t happen. Both parties are way too entrenched for that to incur.
Mind as well vote Republican, friend

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #164304

“I LIKE Bush and Rummy,remember?”

How can I forget? I’m just confused, are they doing it right in Iraq, or not (according to you)? and if you are allowed to second guess them and say stuff like “disarm the sunnis” is Team Blue allowed the same freedom of expression, or are we going to be called traitorous Bush-haters when we second guess?

“Plus, what I am suggesting others in my party have said,thus, I divide nothing.” Well, that suggestion is no more likely to happen than voting out every DC incumbent in 2006. (For starters, how will you do it? go block-by-block and search every house? did that work in Fallujah?)

“You voting out incumbents ,won’t work because ,well, it just won’t happen. Both parties are way too entrenched for that to incur.
Mind as well vote Republican, friend”

Not “incumbents”, Big Bird. I said vote out the “incompetents” - starting with as many as possible of the the rubber-stamp Republicans that let Mr. Mission Accomplished mess up Iraq as much as he did.

Posted by: William Cohen at July 2, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #164329

Wm Cohen

Incumbents and incompetents are redundant, William. The whole crew is corrupt, I think, every last one of them. Politicians have to prostitute themselves with special interest, and incumbants have, what, a 90 something percent re-election rate?

I have said that term limits is the solution, but that will never happen.

My suggestions are not criticizing the prosecution of the war…I let the left side do that. I am merely saying that the enemy , now that that Jordanian has been blown apart, is mainly the left-over Saddamists…who just happen to be Sunni, and just happen to occcupy the Triangle, and Anbar province, which just happend to be where most of the insurgent activity is.

Idealy, hearts and minds can still be won, but first the hard-core Saddamists have to be eliminated.

In any case, within a year or so, when the security forces break 300,000 and head to 360,000, and as that mid-level officer corps picks up battle experience, they should be able to deal with the residual left-overs.

As much as you (and everyone else from the center to the hyper-left) denies it, this war , in my view, is within several months of being finished. At the beginning of the year, I went on record as saying that, and six months into the year, I still believe it.

Military analysts will debate the tactics of this war and our military will adjust accordingly. The asymetricial way this war was fought gives everybody pause for thought. This I know: I am happy Bush is the president, and Kerry isn’t.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #164341

Sicilian Eagle:

“…this war , in my view, is within several months of being finished.”

What will that look like, in your view? Will we still have troops there? How many, you figure? What if there is increased insurgent pressure from Iran in support of the Shiite militias and against the established government, for instance, and it appears that the Iraqi military establishment isn’t up to it? (It happened in Vietnam after Vietnamization for instance.) What would be the trigger point for reinvolvement by the US? I’m curious what this ending will look like, in your estimation.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 2, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #164350

I got a better idea: get a good troop presence in there, stabilize the area, build a police force from well-vetted individuals, and let everybody keep their guns.

I think the big problem with going door-to-door to force people involuntarily give up their weapons is the amazing number of weapons you’re likely to get stuck in your face.

(You have entered The Twilight Zone. Republicans suggesting gun control, Democrats supporting gun rights. Oh, watch the flying eyeball)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #164361
Now may be the time to begin thinking seriously of disarming every Sunni male over the age of 3 in the Sunni Triangle.

Brilliant, brilliant idea.

By the way, I noticed you didn’t even slightly touch on the practicality of implementing this idea, did you? You know, maybe, just maybe, if we had gone in there with a lot more troops than Rummy decided to send, we might have had a fighting chance of settling things down over there without having to resort to “disarming every Sunni male under 3”. Oh, but that’s unpatriotic, isn’t it? Or is it treason? I can’t remember.

Posted by: Crazy_Joe_Divola at July 2, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #164374

Tim Crow

Yes, of course our troops will be there for the forseeable future. Depending on how the ground commanders feel, some will return home by the end of ‘06. Personally, I don’t think the number will ever go under 40 or 50 thousand…not with Iran lurking around the corner.

Also, in the foreseeable future Iran could probably walk into Baghdad if American forces left. As I have said, the Iraq forced, though numerous, lack that critical mid-level officer corps.An Iranian invasion, would trigger a US re-occupation too.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 2, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #164376

SE, you rock…i love your idear, call it the final solution…. brilliant plan.

Posted by: Jake at July 2, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #164399

Sicilian Eagle:

Okay, thanks for the reply.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 3, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #164403

SE, I have to agree that you’ve kinda lost it on this one. Take away a law abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm? Over my dead body. If you’re serious about disarming entire populations, you should write the UN and have them amend their small arms treaty to do so.

You also left out the fact that many of these killings are revenge for murders committed by Shiite death squads and militias.

Seriously, you can’t disarm these people until you can guarantee their safety. Why do you think Democrats have been yelling for more troops since before this thing even started (it’s too late now, BTW)?

You can’t have a democracy unless you first have a state. And the absolute minimum requirement for a state is that the government have a monopoly on the use of force within the state’s borders. This is a well-know basic principle and the Iraq project was doomed from the start because the Bush administration ignored the fundamentals.

If you want to learn about how to run a successful counterinsurgency campaign, consult the professionals: The Marines. Read Col. Thomas X. Hammes’ “The Sling and the Stone”.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #164405
Also, in the foreseeable future Iran could probably walk into Baghdad if American forces left.

They don’t have to walk in, SE. They own the place. They bought it with campaign financing for Shiite politicians and training and equipping the militias of the ruling Shiite political parties — the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq, Dawa, al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and even the Kurdish Peshmurga.

We just had Gen. Casey complaining about it the other day.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #164421

Hey Gun Lovers

Interesting how in time of war most conservatives support Bush taking away some civil liberties to fight the war on terror, NSA, Phone records, financial transactions, patriot act…But God forbid he take away my gun!

So in time of war and national security you are willing to give up some privacy but not your gun.

So some constitutional rights are negotiable some are not?

Posted by: Stefano at July 3, 2006 5:17 AM
Comment #164422

SE

Just a clarification, Osama Bin Ladan issued a warning to Shites not to cooperate with the US against Sunni’s, or they will be targeted. This is not the same as waging war against them.

The ruthless tactics started by Zarqari and now continued by his successor and Osama is to attack shia arabs that support the US and the new government. There really isn’t anything new here.

But what is telling is that starting with Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, we now see arabs attacking arabs. Not sure what all this means or where this will go. But you would think they would be unified against a common enemy.

I think this war on terror will only end when the arab people themseleves decide enough. That these Islamic terrorist who are supposedly fighting for the arab people kill enough innocent people and hurting them more than western imperialists. Then the Arab world stop it themseleves.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at July 3, 2006 5:38 AM
Comment #164424

SE,

This is a war, and the Saddamist are the enemy. PLUS, in post-war Germany and Japan, the population was disarmed.

This is a war, not post-war time (yet), and Saddamist are not the whole Iraq population but a minority.
So, differente situation.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #164425

Crazy_Joe_Divola

No, it’s neither treason nor unpatriotic to ctiticize Rumsfeld.

Let’s recall that Tommy Franks, to a great degree was the archetict, to a great extent of the invasion.

The theory of that lightening quick attack was to secure Baghdad as quickly as pobbibly with a minimum loss of life, which was done. However, the error was that the hearts and minds weren’t won, nor was the deep seeded hatred that exists between the differing sects properly factored in.

To me, this was the big error, one of many.

Nonetheless, an intrim government was formed, a constitution was written,elections were held, and finally, a permanent government is in place.

This, despite a thousand mistakes.

At this point, I don’t think more boots on the ground is the answer. Now, more boots mean more targets.

The answer ,of course, lies with the new government,which is only weeks old.

If Americans had brought in overwhelming force at the beginning, and an insurgency still went on, I think we would have more that the present casualities.

Now, about Rummy: I love the guy. He has had a long, distinguished career, and is one tough son of a bitch. HGe was the right guy at the right time too. Should he resign now? Well, he tried that TWICE, but the president did not accept it.

I think American forces now are even more lethal than ever. We now have the world’s most EXPERIENCED fighting force, and we have learned to fight an aysymetrical war pretty well, I think. The esprit di corps in the military is very very high, and returning vets say that the mission is worth it. They see the good that has happened.

Vast areas of Iraq are functioning well. Three provinces are really where all the death is taking place, out of 18. In some areas, Iraqi forces and only Iraqi forces are providing security. Nary an Amercican in sight.

As I said last week, Baghdad must be secured.Then the Iraq government must get out of the green zone and truly rule.


Jack

The crack about the “final solution” was unnecessary. Disarming an insurgent population, or at least disarming parts of the population still loyal to saddam is light years away from what you suggest.

AP
I assume now, that you are now against an assault weapons banhere in the states? If true, I am pleased that I am finally have some affect on your thought!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 3, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #164426

SE,

this war , in my view, is within several months of being finished. At the beginning of the year, I went on record as saying that, and six months into the year, I still believe it.

Defines “several” better than between “2” and “infinity”. Defines “finished” better than “over”.
Otherwise, let me say that anyone could go “on record” to say such vague Nostradamus predictions…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #164427

SE,

The theory of that lightening quick attack was to secure Baghdad as quickly as pobbibly with a minimum loss of life, which was done.

Oh, really? Then why Bush made an unannounced visit in the Green Zone of Baghdad instead of an official, planned one?
Baghdad secured, what a joke!

The only things that is secure since the invasion is the US troops presence in Iraq and innocents being killed everyday…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #164428

Ooops, I miss this one, SE:

The theory of that lightening quick attack was to secure Baghdad as quickly as pobbibly with a minimum loss of life, which was done.

[…]

As I said last week, Baghdad must be secured.Then the Iraq government must get out of the green zone and truly rule.

I’m glad you in fact recognize that Baghdad must be (re?)secured. Too bad it make the *great* theory of that lightening quick attack to secure Baghdad a failed one, then.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 3, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #164479

While I supported taking out Saddam I am not convinced that it is possible to ever make Iraq a democracy. I just don’t think democracy fits in with their religious and cultural history and unless we plan on being there for another 50+ years I don’t think we are going to change this culture.

Posted by: Carnak at July 3, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #164490

SE,

I agree that a massive frontal assault like Rumsfeld’s critics wanted would have resulted in thousands of more deaths on both sides of the conflict. The far left early on predicted hundreds of thousands of body bags being needed. 3,000 is a sad number of people to die, but it’s a small number in comparison to previous wars, or even battles.

Progress is being made in Iraq and thier transition to democracy is taking less time than Germany or Japan after WWII. When the far left isn’t criticizing the US for removing Saddam they are complaining that we are spending too much to rebuild Iraq. So we are both too kind and too mean at the same time.

Saddam’s forces shooting at our planes once would be enough to say they violated the cease fire. Saddam did seek yellow cake uranium from Africa. Saddam didn’t eliminate his chemical weapons as he said he did. Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and was continuing the slaughter. I believe we actually saved Iraqi lives by slowing down the Saddamite murderers.

Posted by: Steve at July 3, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #164496

Carnak

You may very well be correct. One thing for certain, it won’t be a “Western” style democracy, for sure.

Again, our fault for not taking the time to properly understand the Muslim mind…but that’s can be laid at the president’s feet…that attitude has been around since our inception

Steve

Excellent post

Posted by: sicilianegle at July 3, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #164591
We now have the world’s most EXPERIENCED fighting force, and we have learned to fight an aysymetrical war pretty well, I think.

Then why are you posting crazy solutions to a problem you now say doesn’t exist, SE?

Steve… … Never mind.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2006 9:08 PM
Post a comment