We've heard periodic reports of native terrorists fighting foreign terrorists in Iraq, but this report via
is odd news, if true. The Islamic Army in Iraq is not just another 'insurgent' group. These are your hardcore headchoppers, hostage-takers, and civilian murderers.
If The Islamic Army in Iraq has begun to fight with al Qaeda, then I'm afraid it is more likely a turf war than anything else. The news that other groups, which are more nationalist in orientation, though, fighting against al Qaeda, is probably more accurate. Der Spiegel:
In October, the two insurgents said in interviews, a group of local fighters from the Islamic Army gathered for an open-air meeting on a street corner in Taji, a city north of Baghdad.
Across from the Iraqis stood the men from Al Qaeda, mostly Arabs from outside Iraq. Some of them wore suicide belts. The men from the Islamic Army accused the Qaeda fighters of murdering their comrades.
“Al Qaeda killed two people from our group,” said an Islamic Army fighter who uses the nom de guerre Abu Lil and who claimed that he attended the meeting. “They repeatedly kill our people.”
The encounter ended angrily. A few days later, the insurgents said, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Islamic Army fought a bloody battle on the outskirts of town.
The battle, which the insurgents said was fought on Oct. 23, was one of several clashes between Al Qaeda and local Iraqi guerrilla groups that have broken out in recent months across the Sunni Triangle.
Like I said, turf war. This battle does not represent a turn of the tide against terrorists. That tide was turned long ago and has nothing to do with terrorist on terrorist bloodshed. It would be a lot like the Taliban turning on al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Whoever is the victor, the results would be the same.
1
Criminal thugs are the same the world over.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 10:08 AM (0yYS2)
2
This isn't a new story though - Bill Roggio and others have been reporting for months that various insurgent groups and al Qaeda have been getting into red on red fights, with the US and coalition looking on in amusement.
That it appeared above the fold on the NYT front page is a big deal though. It would be a backhanded admission that al Qaeda is on the losing end of the conflict in Iraq.
Posted by: lawhawk at January 12, 2006 11:09 AM (eppTH)
3
Here's hoping they wipe each other out.
Posted by: KG at January 12, 2006 11:57 AM (eRMCR)
Posted by: George Ramos at January 12, 2006 01:33 PM (5E0ex)
5
Regrettably, one of Saddam Hussein's only redeeming virtues was his secularism. Secularism in Iraq is doomed face backlash along with everything else the Iraqis hated about the old regime. The Sunnis are more conspicuous in this because they have the greater grudge against us, but I bet the Iraqi Shia are going the same way. Since their allies are better practiced and more motivated they'll be the worse source of terrorism in the long run.
Posted by: ShannonKW at January 12, 2006 02:29 PM (dT1MB)
6
Regardless of how the Iraq war ends, the problem of a radical, resurgent Islam is not about to go away, and will likely get worse in most parts of the World. So I agree with ShannonKW on this, however I think the Sunni will still be the majority of the terrorists, mainly because they exist in huge numbers vis a vie the Shia.
I would recommend that we be observant in SE Asia, especially Malaysia, Indonesia and the Phillipines, as the Islamists have become very active in these areas. Another major cause of concern is Africa, where jihadists are training and indoctrinating the former moderate Muslims. The West will be in a long, hard fight for its survival. Right now, I doubt whether most people in the West are in any way ready to confront these people. Only in parts of the US and Australia is there the spine for a real fight.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 04:04 PM (rUyw4)
7
Hell Shannon, secularism is dead in America. The fact is that humans are so conditioned to religion that it has become an addiction. We'll have to let the masses have their opiates if it keeps them happy, and just try to keep the holy wars to a minimum.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 04:25 PM (0yYS2)
8
Anyone else notice that the places joe mentions have something in common? Namely, the lack of capitalism and, in turn, representative government.
Not to be a root cause guy (mainly because I hate that crap) but I can't help but think there might be a connection. I'm guessing that jihadis would have a harder time taking hold in places where there is economic opportunities for the populous.
Posted by: KG at January 12, 2006 04:33 PM (eRMCR)
9
True, KG, but the other thing these areas have in common is Islam. Without Islam there would no doubt be problems in these countries, but the wild card in all this terrorism is Islam. Money that could have been used to improve the life and living standards in these countries is now being used to build and maintain Salafist teaching mosques.
I also disagree with your jihadist theory with respect to developed countries and economic opportunity. In Britain the jihadists came from wealthy families in some cases, so again I say radical Islam is the root cause. I am a root cause guy.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 04:54 PM (rUyw4)
10
KG,
Lebanon has a famously strong capitalist tradition, and they are home to Hezballah, among other groups.
That's not to say that poor economic policy couldn't contribute to the problem. A big population of Muslims who have nothing to lose seems to breed terrorism; and bloated, corrupt governments that own everyting in the country are real good at producing those conditions.
Maximus,
On the bright side, while we are a bit less secular than we were when I was a kid, the U.S. is very far from the Christian analogue of Islamism. I don't think it could happen in my lifetime, either. It would conflict with our individualism. Americans (with notable exceptions) are too prone to interpret their holy Book for themselves rather than have a politician do it for them.
Posted by: ShannonKW at January 12, 2006 06:06 PM (dT1MB)
11
ShannonKW,
I think you nailed it in your answer to IM. The particular concept you refer to is called the "priesthood of the believer". It means that I can read the Bible myself and come to my own conclusions. That is why Christianity has adapted to the modern World and Islam has not. Islam allows little or no interpretation, and what interpretation is allowed comes from the imans. It is a top down religion, and only a remaking of Islam itself will allow for reform.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 08:05 PM (rUyw4)
12
The possibility that the locals might be taking on Al Qaeda is kind of beside the point when it comes to the threat still confronting the US military. My reading of the Iraqi situation is that there are plenty of grass roots unsurgents who may not share bin Laden's vision, but who also have no love at all for the US. Some of these will be what Rumsfield has referred to as "Saddamists".
This is a really tough predicament for the US military. I have to admit to having deep reservation when I hear the President talk about "victory" in the context of this type of fight. It's very hard to defeat an enemy that is faceless and can blend with the local population at will.
Tiny Northern Ireland is only a fraction of the size of Iraq, and yet the British military never succeeded in defeating the provisional IRA volunteers, who in some cases were only teenagers. The only way to defeat this type of enemy miltarily, is to use draconian measures and international law (Geneva included), makes this type of approach untenable.
So a standing army has to use all its intellgence resources and non-conventional tactics to try and manage the security situation to the best of its ability. I certainly feel great deal of respect for the young GI's in Iraq who are required to walk this dangerous line every day. It can't be easy.
The next six months or going to be crucial. I was on a blog recently and read a post from a young Iraqi woman who spoke of rising ethnic/tribal tensions and she fears a descent into civil war.
With Ahmadinejad on the loose in Iran, let's hope this fear is unfounded.
Posted by: Aidan Maconachy at January 13, 2006 01:33 AM (ki9mX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
