You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
'Enemy on enemy' fire signals rebel split in Iraq
2005-06-21
Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange trend in the complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in this constellation of towns along the Euphrates, from Husayba to Qaim. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.

A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said by telephone that there had been a split for some time. "There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the jihadists' grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."
Posted by:Glains Theash7392

#18  Quite funny LiberalHawk--but if Abu ben Boomie were a GOP plant he'd also mention that he was there to gut their retirement plan, give a free ride to the relatives of the Baath Party who have more wealth--then mention that he's a compassionate Islamist (Conservative) You'd have to wonder where he got that agenda?
Posted by: NotMikeMoore   2005-06-21 22:46  

#17  Sometimes it is a shame they have such poor aim.
Posted by: Sorge   2005-06-21 20:34  

#16  That's cold, Captain A.

True, but cold. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-06-21 16:15  

#15  Cheer up! The UN consulting widely with militant groups means the demise is near. Wonder how many insurgents were raped by the UN consultant(s)?
Posted by: Captain America   2005-06-21 15:42  

#14  You know I was tabbed for OverLord by Marshall before Ike don't 'ya. But no! You speak a little slant and off you go. Shit, I should'a killed the peanut myself and saved the world a lot of trouble.
Posted by: V. Joe   2005-06-21 15:41  

#13  I remember watching the NCAA basketball tournament a few years ago with some friends, and seeing LSU playing Clemson. I'm not a fan of college basketball, and I wasn't in a pool that year, so I didn't care who won. I just sat there nursing my beer, happily shouting "Go Tigers!" every time somebody scored.

I imagine those Marines feel something similar.
Posted by: Mike   2005-06-21 14:48  

#12  My takeaways from this are: (1) guerrilla infighting doesn't really show whether they're losing or winning - it could mean either and (2) guerrilla infighting could be good for Uncle Sam's efforts in Iraq in the sense that they could kill each other off, or bad, if it leads to the unification of the factions, meaning that they can coordinate large-scale operations instead of each faction jealously guarding its resources and carrying out penny packet deployments.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-06-21 14:25  

#11   "He's going to help us right-size our organization, establish a strategic vision, write a mission statement, and break down organizational stovepipes"

Uh oh, I've been in one of those sessions. It made me want to go on a killing rampage, could be trouble.
Posted by: Steve   2005-06-21 14:14  

#10  seriously, I think this must be one of the guys sent to ask if they wanna surrender. Didnt work of course, cause only Iraqis can do the rug dealing necessary to accomplish that.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2005-06-21 14:04  

#9  why is the UN consulting the insurgents? obviously to help beat the insurgency.

Abu ben boomie: Ive brought you all to this meeeting to meet our new Consultant, Thomas Howell of Howell Management Systems, Inc. Hes going to help us right-size our organization, establish a strategic vision, write a mission statement, and break down organizational stovepipes. Id like you to stop whatever else it is you are doing when he asks to interview you. First he will interviewing everyone in our organization Jihadi Killers of Iraq, in order to fully document our genocide processes, look for duplication of effort, and evaluate our metrics.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2005-06-21 14:02  

#8  Dread, I don't think it's that bad. I'm more in line (like yesterday's article) that maybe this is a good sign. Personally, I wish for faster please (I'd rather 'em kill each other than our guys), but the escalation in violence could be the beginning of the end (much like the many Pacific battles cited at the end of WWII). Like someone said yesterday, wars don't fizzle out, they go out with a bang! I think the public in Iraq is starting to get very tired of the jihadis and hopefully, will squash 'em like a bug soon.
Posted by: BA   2005-06-21 13:49  

#7  My point was basically that any time you have two different factions fighting a common enemy the parties involved must do two things simultaneously:

1. Defeat the current enemy
2. Position oneself advantageously for the next conflict

This poses a problem, though. If you do too much of the fighting, you could be spent as a fighting force, giving your erstwhile ally an easy road to usurp power. On the other hand, if you do too little fighting, all the accolades (and political prestige) go to the more combative group.

The Japanese were in no position to destroy either the Communists or the Nationalists. And the Communists and the Nationalists were certainly in no position to destroy the Japanese.
I would assert that unless we have a shift in political will in our country, this statement is going to hold true for us as well. Unless we stem the flow of jihadis from Syria, Saudi and possibly Iran, we'll face a never-ending stream of cannon fodder who are content to kill one of us for every hundred of them.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2005-06-21 13:28  

#6  Dreadnought: Not unusual. In China the Nationalists and Communists spent almost as much effort fighting each other as they did the Japanese.

Different situation here. The Japanese were in no position to destroy either the Communists or the Nationalists. And the Communists and the Nationalists were certainly in no position to destroy the Japanese. An all-out effort by either the Nationalists or the Communists to go after the Japanese would have been a waste of Chinese lives, because only Uncle Sam had the kind of military power required to beat them.

Saddam's people have the potential to topple the present government. They know how to run the government, and remain able to identify and kill government officials at will, meaning that the repressive organs of Saddam's government remain largely intact. By contrast, the Shiites and the Kurds were never able to do anything like this when Saddam was in power. If Iraq's Baathists want to regain power, they can't rely on some outside power to do for them (unlike China during WWII). And the closer they get to victory, the more they'll want to slaughter potential opponents. Baathists don't want to share power with al Qaeda, and al Qaeda doesn't want to share power with Baathists.

In context, both Chinese and Iraqi guerrilla infighting makes sense - the Chinese were fighting each other to remain top dog after Uncle Sam beat the Japanese, and the Iraqi guerrillas are fighting each other for the keys to the kingdom after Uncle Sam leaves. Anyone who reads the American media could be forgiven for thinking that Uncle Sam is about to bail out of Iraq. The infighting could be a sign that Iraqi guerrillas are about to lose - or it could be a sign that Iraqi guerrillas think that they're about to win, that the endgame for the US presence in Iraq is in sight.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-06-21 12:58  

#5  Good question, trailing wife. Though we all know the answer -- especially when he spills the one about "nationalist" part of the "insurgency". Ya know, the "nationalists" who are the leaders or lackeys of a tiny minority of unelected, corrupt, genocidal, criminals who looted the country and murdered millions. Ya know, "nationalist."

This red-on-red fighting has been going on for some time out west. It's often as not tied up with tribal feuds, personalities, $$$$, and the usual idiocy as with the purported noble delicacy of the proud "nationalist" parasite thugs so dear to the anonymous "UN official."
Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq   2005-06-21 12:55  

#4  In China the Nationalists and Communists spent almost as much effort fighting each other as they did the Japanese.

If you asked Stilwell, the Nationalists didn't spend much time fighting anyone.

I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the jihadists' grabbing the headlines

I suspect this is the real issue, much more than the murder of innocent civilians. Baathists never seemed to worried about that before.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-06-21 12:52  

#3  Why are UN officials consulting with "militant groups" in Iraq?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-06-21 12:44  

#2  Not unusual. In China the Nationalists and Communists spent almost as much effort fighting each other as they did the Japanese.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2005-06-21 12:39  

#1  And it looks like the media is taking the Jihadi ride...
Posted by: tu3031   2005-06-21 12:34  

00:00