Sep 22 2007
Arming the tribes in Iraq
The New York Times posts a thought twister that bends the semantic reach of “rational” warfare (my own quotes). Talking about the assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Reesha, a Sunni tribal leader in Iraq, the Times explains that he was the “leader of the American supported Sunni tribal uprising against extremist Islamist insurgents”. This indeed, forced me to sigh and attempt to digest the meaning.
It is an interesting suggestion that we accept some insurgents are not “extremist”, this is what I gather from the descriptive nature of the quote. If that be the case, that gives the non-extremist insurgent a cassu belli; legitimacy against occupation? against the Iraqi government? legitimacy of some sort. A question worth observation, but not when being observed from the eyes of the occuping power. At this stage of the insurgency, it matters little which side has a legitimate role, in reality legitimacy is an illusion that greases the wheels of the insurgent or the state to go from one violent act to another. An opiate that clouds reality, veils the guilt, and feeds the insatiable hunger of vengence for the insurgent and power for the empire.
Another interesting notion is our support for tribal uprisings. How thin must that support be? What conditions are paramount for that support. Just listen to history shout at our ignorance and lack of attention. Can we really expect Sunni “support” to be something more than a temporary conveniance for disempowered Sunnis to regain what they’ve lost.
A last thing to consider. Many of the Sunnis we’re arming now to rise up agaisnt the insurgents have killed Americans in battle. This should be enough to infuriate the most ardent patriot and at least frustrate the apathetic.