The attacks in Jordan are spurring a big backlash against AQ in the Middle East and elsewhere. Now it looks like the Iraqi insurgents are splitting from AQ as well. This is definitely good news not only in Iraq but for its broader implications in the fight against terrorism. Al Qaeda in Iraq fights other terrorist groups Insurgents disagree over money, tactics November 10, 2005 BY MOHAMMED AL DULAIMY KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS RAMADI, Iraq -- Al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorist group headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has broken with local Sunni insurgent groups in central Iraq, in some cases resulting in gun battles on the street. On Sunday, fighting between insurgent groups started at a central intersection in war-torn Ramadi -- the capital of the Sunni heartland province of Anbar. As many as two dozen men fired automatic weapons and blasted away with shoulder-mounted rockets as Al Qaeda in Iraq ambushed members of three local groups. Eyewitnesses and Sunni insurgents said it was a fight between groups that would have been considered allies three months ago. One Al Qaeda in Iraq fighter was killed, and an unknown number on each side were injured. The groups have fallen into disputes about money and tactics, including over whether to participate in Iraq's political system. Residents say they think the strong support that Al Qaeda in Iraq has had in the heart of Anbar province is starting to fracture. The group is dominated by non-Iraqis. Staff Sgt. Don Dees, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said he wasn't aware of the situation and couldn't comment. It's hard to gauge the impact of a split among insurgent groups on the U.S. war effort. But a split in Ramadi could blunt the influence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, as the city in the so-called Sunni Triangle generally is seen as the heart of the group's power in the country. The group has taken credit for many of the country's more vicious terrorist attacks. Kamil Ahmed, a 40-year-old resident with long-standing ties to local insurgent groups, said the break started in the summer, when Al Qaeda in Iraq started killing police who showed up for work, breaking an insurgent agreement to let the officers do their jobs. The split intensified when the group assassinated several sheikhs for criticizing its actions. Insurgent groups also went against Al Qaeda in Iraq and urged citizens to vote in the constitutional referendum in October and in the upcoming December national elections. Ahmed said the final straw was about money. He said businesses and even some government offices around Ramadi had been paying local insurgents protection money, as much as $70,000 a month. Al Qaeda in Iraq demanded the money. "What we have now is a very severe split. Open warfare isn't far behind," he said. By Monday, Al Qaeda in Iraq was calling for the assassinations of leaders, members and so-called spies from the Iraqi Islamic Army, one of the nation's largest insurgent groups, along with the Revolutionary Group and the Ramadi-based Abu Khatab. "Spies" means people who cooperate with coalition forces, for instance by reporting a roadside bomb in Ramadi. Local insurgent groups preach fighting only against coalition forces. They claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq's insistence on killing Iraqis has cost it much of its local support.
Good news. Now here's my question, Hayes. And I mean this genuinely. You once told me in an earlier argument something along the lines of the insurgency being criminal because they engage in terrorism. Now if they are splitting with Al-Qaeda, where does that leave things? Will they still target civilians, as you said was done so predominantly? Is there any distinction between Al-Qaeda and the insurgency if they still do? Would it really matter in that case?
Well, I know there's been a lot of dispute about who the 'insurgents' were targeting. I know that I have argued at times that it was the foreign fighters doing the suicide bombings and the Iraqis were only targeting the coalition. But IIRC someone else put up some evidence that there wasn't a split like that so I couldn't hold that position for sure. I don't think I've ever advocated that the Iraqi insurgents were targeting civilians because it didn't seem to make sense that they'd be blowing up open markets and mosques etc. - so I'm not sure exactly what statement you're attributing to me. As to where they are at now, it appears (at least from the article) that there is a movement to join the democratic process by the Iraqi part of the insurgency. I think that's great. Not only will it resolve the insurgency but it should lead to the destruction of AQ in Iraq. They won't enjoy the safehouses etc and the local population will be tipping security forces off to their whereabouts. If I'm reading your point I think you're asking if they should be allowed back in, or if they are criminals and should be kept out? Is that right? If so I think its practical to allow an insurgent back into the process - like the IRA in Ireland.
I hope Al Qaeda is rejected and turned on by anyone with any knowledge at all of them and their doings. This was a huge mistake for Al Qaeda, I hope this is the beginning of their end.
Why is this good news? It seems like this makes things more complicated. Now we have more to fight than just Al Qaeda.
We were already fighting more than Al Queda. The majority of the insurgency are Iraqis (numbers wise). If the Iraqi insurgents turn against AQ, their supply lines and sanctuaries disappear. That makes it much more likely they will be eradicated. In addition, as the article points out, the Iraqi insurgents have started to make encouraging steps to join the political process in Iraq. That not only delegitimizes Al Queda in Iraq, but could potentially have the same effect throughout the Muslim world. Muslims are already turning away from support for suicide bombings against the coalition, much less against other Muslims. As AQ steps up its attacks against Muslim civilian targets, they become further and further marginalized.
We can always hope but let's be real about this. The media has speculated several times before about defining moments splitting the local insurgents from Al Qaeda. I'm numb to it now. When it becomes a certifiable trend and when "locals" start turning in Qaeda operatives and leaders to authorities, I'll believe it. When the suicide bombers and roadside bombs slow down to a trickle for a long period of time, I'll believe it. Ever since the insurgency started, the media has been grasping at supposed good news like this in Iraq trying to create something out of nothing. The fact is while U.S. troops remain there, an endless supply of Sunni fanatics will enter Iraq to kill U.S. troops, "collaborators" and civilians. I'm not advocating an irresponsible quick pullout, but the whole Iraq project looks very shaky in the long term. I follow Middle East events fairly closely and there are a lot of bad trends right now. Sorry for being so sour but that's how I see it.
Some of their tactics seem to be so obviously damaging to their cause...Jordanian deaths being the most recent example. You'd think it would be obvious to them also, yet ironically, their leadership's egos seem to make them as oblivious to the ramifications of their actions as does the egos of some of ours.
I mean this isn't the first time they have killed muslims in their attacks, but this one is the most publicized. I agree their tactics have been puzzling to me, and this one certainly is so. But from the rhetoric it seems they are going to continue down this path. I would love so much to see them go down in flames.
Hopefully the Sunni insurgents will begin to favor a political process and that may actually lead the country toward democracy. Of course, we have to hope the ****es don't try to turn Iraq into the second coming of Iran.
I don't think it's surprising at all that their tactics might seem incoherent. Al Qaeda, without the open base in afghanistan, seems like a an even more loose confederation of extremists scattered about the globe following vaguely similar agendas, rather than a top-down organization as in the past (if it ever really was that). I don't think it takes much to "join" al-qaeda now other than to get a bunch of like minded friends, or should I say, fellow travelers, together and say "I'm ready to kill/etc. for Islam and Al Qaeda!" So you'll get actions that seem disparate and disjointed, etc.
Sam seems right. Any two or three folks can call themselves"Al Qaeda". They like this as it makes them feel important; so does Al Qaeda ,who can pretend to be everywhere;so do the Bushies who can then keep pretending that we invaded Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. There have long been reports that the Iraqi resistance has not been happy with AL Qaeda targetting civilians. It hurts their cause. Sort of like torture and use of death squads often hurt US imperialist projects. 95% of Iraqi insurgents are local Iraqis not Al Qaeda (by the CIA that troubling agency where some of the folks have still not drank the neo-con kool-aid despite the efforts of the Bushie's to drive them out of the CIA) The attack in Jordan was by an Iraqi woman from Fallujah and her husband. Among other things it seems they were pissed off at the flattening of Fallujah. Such retaliatory terrorist actions were a readily forseen action predicted by many knowledgeable independent experts who said that the US invasion of Iraq would create many Bin Ladens. It is a shame that, as with the Jordanian bombing, the policies of Bush and his neocon followers increase such terrorism. I don't think they actually intend this. I just think that their close minded group think caused them to engage in happy self delusional thinking about a cost free war and not to take into account the predictions of more knowlegeable and independent experts.
