Video: The Patriquin plan in action in Anbar

posted at 9:53 am on March 19, 2007 by Allahpundit

Guardian Films looks at the war in the west, where those three chlorine bombs went off this weekend. Not hard to guess whodunnit:

Friday’s attack in Anbar province appeared to target Sheik Khamis Hasnawi al-Eifan of Albu Issa, a Sunni tribe that had moved to expel al Qaeda from its territory and work with the government. Many tribe members had joined the police force.

WashTimes says to expect this pattern to repeat itself in Diyala province in the east, which has 19 major tribes and where many of the jihadis fleeing the surge in Baghdad have escaped to.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The surge is working.

The Patriquin plan is working.

We ARE going to win. But most importantly, Baghdad is not going to be Al Qaeda’s new Caliphate.

Al Qaeda, as they did in Afghanistan, as they did in Somalia, is going to fail in Iraq. And when they do, it will be time to take them on in their new “homeland,” the tribal lands of Pakistan.

georgej on March 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Thanks Allah.

If our media showed clips like this one night after night, instead of criticizing every new strategy we employ, the public could be swayed, our enemies would fear their demise and the war could be won in short order.

A little more time can make the difference. The Democrats aren’t interested in more time, they want us out and they want us out soon. They want defeat.

fogw on March 19, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Who would have thought AQ would be hunted down by an indiginous Sunni force?

Clark1 on March 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM

“Who would have thought AQ would be hunted down by an indiginous Sunni force?”

Lots of people.

“Red on Red” engagements between Sunni militias and Al Qaeda have been happening since the middle of 2005. The plan was for the Iraqi police and army to stand to and fight the insurgency (including Al Qaeda) while US troops would render arty and air support as needed.

georgej on March 19, 2007 at 12:00 PM

This Sheik will be the new strongman then. He’ll be our new enemy in a few years or so, using our own weapons against us.

PRCalDude on March 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM

if Bush reads Hotair, he can actually use this clip in his presentations. He once said in a interview that he was web-sarvy. He does not even need to say a word. Just play the clip and say, “any questions.”

Ouabam on March 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Even though Shaykh Sattar describes to Thomson how his forces disrupted a plot by Al-Qaeda to attack Shiites with chemical munitions, the channel 4 reporter can’t resist asking: “So, are we finally seeing here the American dream for Iraq taking shape or yet just another faction tooling up for a civil war?”

And, Thomson asks, will the Al Qaeda terrorist (who shot two Iraqis for helping the Americans and who has been detained for four months) meet a judge or a bullet?

Thomson wouldn’t even be able to step foot in Ramadi if it weren’t for the Awakening shaykhs…and the 1st and 2nd MEFs and the attached Army brigades.

I linked to the video a week ago, but the only reason I did so was because it was the first time a Western news outfit has filmed Sattar addressing the Anbar Salvation Council (what up Fox? — Ollie and Geraldo were there but didn’t see fit to interview Sattar at length).

This Sheik will be the new strongman then. He’ll be our new enemy in a few years or so, using our own weapons against us.

I’d be willing to bet against it PRCalDude.

“The time for dictatorship is gone, and we are welcoming the new dawn of democracy and freedom here. I expect the future to be much better for the next generation for they will live in a better world than we do today.”

- Shaykh Abdul Sattar Abureeshah

And…

Now, “If you talk to these sheiks, they’ll tell you that they’re in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar,” he said.

“One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping … put them back together,” MacFarland said. “The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty.”

- Col. Sean Macfarland, 1st BCT, 1st AD

There’s video here of Ahmed, Sattar’s brother. UPI’s Pamela Hess is interviewing him.

ganeshpuri89 on March 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I’d be willing to bet against it PRCalDude.

“The time for dictatorship is gone, and we are welcoming the new dawn of democracy and freedom here. I expect the future to be much better for the next generation for they will live in a better world than we do today.”

- Shaykh Abdul Sattar Abureeshah

Does that guy look trustworthy to you? I saw the general acting like a good dhimmi toward him.

PRCalDude on March 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Does that guy look trustworthy to you? I saw the general acting like a good dhimmi toward him.

PRC, that’s the best we have. The sheiks are not imperialists. They’re businessmen (“I own a construction company”) and the historical rulers in that region. I think they have a vested interest in maintaining stability and taking part in the Iraqi parliament. Certainly some centralization of power will happen under such men as this sheik, but that’s the nature of group dynamics.

The general was not acting as a dhimmi. He was utilizing the existing command structure to its fullest, which is what we’re going to have to do to protect our interests over there. Those sheiks want our money, they want our construction contracts, and they want the stability of knowing they can call on the U.S. armed forces if there’s a problem they can’t handle. We want their knowledge and stabilizing influence, we want a rational partner in exchanges, and we want to demilitarize the region as soon as we can without sacrificing our interests.

We’re over there for our interests, not the sheiks’, and they know that. If we can’t reach a consensus of mutual interest (both long term and short) with men like them, then there’s not much to be done than just nuke the whole thing and start over. This is the most rational course of action to my mind.

spmat on March 19, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Does that guy look trustworthy to you? I saw the general acting like a good dhimmi toward him.

Nice of the British reporter to identify the General, no?

It’s U.S. Marine Brig. Gen. John Allen, deputy commander for Multinational Force-West.

As to your question. Sattar’s brother, Ahmed, is the one who looks trustworthy. Sattar looks fierce, a mean SOB.

It was Sattar who initially approached the Americans (Col. Macfarland) last September. That, in the Muslim world, says a lot.

I think there’s a mutual need, a mutual respect. I too, at first, had the same reaction as you, but was won over after hearing Gen. Petraeus praise him.

ganeshpuri89 on March 19, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Isn’t it telling that the following will NEVER be allowed to be brodcast on the MSM….

Iraqis fighting for their own freedom………

“The Sheiks have had enough, the whole region is fighting against Al Qaeda. Our aim, is to fight the terrorist. Our morale is very high. We have arrested many nationalities, and hand them over to the Iraqis, not the Americans. Roadside attacks have been cut in half against the Americans. We have now over 100 high ranking Al Qaeda in custody. We have found Chemical Weapons .”

PinkyBigglesworth on March 19, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Does that guy look trustworthy to you? I saw the general acting like a good dhimmi toward him.

PRCalDude on March 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM

That’s how you act towards an ally. Good manners go a long way in the ME.

It must make a Guardian reporter sick to have to report good news coming out of Iraq. Cooperation on this scale is what we need to guarantee peace in Anbar. We are truly approaching the point where we can say mission accomplished. No thanks to the doubters and haters.

Bill C on March 19, 2007 at 2:49 PM

The sheiks are not imperialists

The fact that they are Muslim makes them imperialists. The staff at JihadWatch have been trying to elucidate this for years, and it gets not much traction even in the conservative blogosphere. These Arabs sheiks are the very same stock from which Mohammed sprung.

PRCalDude on March 19, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Anyone else have the feeling that the Jihadis are using chlorine bombs because they’re running out of the good stuff and now have to settle with what they can mix up from under the counter?

- The Cat

MirCat on March 19, 2007 at 5:10 PM

They need to start an ad campaign (TV, billboards, whatever) where a group of people stop someone on the street and ask him if he is Sunni or Shia. The man yells back, “I am an Iraqi!”

- The Cat

MirCat on March 19, 2007 at 5:18 PM

The fact that they are Muslim makes them imperialists.

Wrong. That Islam is imperialistic in nature does not make individual Muslims imperialists. Spencer at jihadwatch makes the point repeatedly that the most Muslims are ignorant, either willfully or otherwise, of the imperialism in their religion. This does not mean that the imperialism is not there, but it does mean that men such as this sheik can be Muslim and not be imperialistic.

In essence, I’m saying this man is likely not an imperialist because he does not take certain aspects of his religion seriously. The extent to which he might become an imperialist is dependent more on his ability to accrue power than any nascent religious fervor he might have. In other words, he’s sane, and he’s rational. We can work with him.

spmat on March 20, 2007 at 1:58 AM