Deal with the Devil?

Sacrificed to the Surge

Tribal fighters have cut down Iraq’s violence. But they’re subjecting women to often-medieval mores.

America’s efforts to disengage from Iraq have led to some messy compromises. After years of trying without success to wrest Sunni areas from Qaeda control, U.S. ground commanders appear to have done it at last—but only by granting sweeping powers to sheiks and local leaders who can keep the peace. Now Iraq’s Sunni areas have been chopped into fragments, each one run by a different tribal ruler with different views on law and society. In some parts of Baghdad the situation changes visibly from block to block. No one can say how many of these leaders abuse their powers, or if their little sectors can ever be put back under the purview of a centrally controlled government. “We are becoming like Afghanistan was in the ’80s,” says Zainab Salbi, the Iraq-born founder and CEO of the activist group Women for Women International.
.
But at present, U.S. forces are too pleased by the sharp drop in jihadist attacks to lose sleep over things like gender issues. “They’re going to find their own level about what is acceptable,” says Col. Martin Stanton, one of the Sahwa program’s U.S. coordinators. “In terms of what they’re doing within their own culture [Very “liberal” definition of “culture” to include stone-age Islam, but then I am being redundant I suppose.], I don’t think we’d intervene in that.” The Coalition has let Shiite groups impose their values across much of the south for years for the sake of stability; women there mostly go veiled now, and some have quit their jobs under pressure from Shiite militia members.
,
Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, went to Iraq in 2003 as a senior constitutional adviser with the fledgling Coalition Provisional Authority. He recalls how tribal sheiks approached U.S. envoy Paul Bremer that spring, offering to help calm their angry followers. “We told them, ‘No, we’re not going to take Iraq back to the Middle Ages’,” says Feldman. U.S. commanders spent the next four years trying to fight the insurgents without help from the sheiks. “We tried other ways, and it didn’t work,” says Coleman. “Tribal leaders are cleaning things up. [So you have made a deal with the Devil. Bet the rent money on black and spin the wheel. Great.]
.
The question is, where does it cross the line? And we don’t know.” No one does. But some Iraqi women worry that the Sahwa has already won too much power—and that now there’s no turning back.

MB4 on June 2, 2008 at 7:13 PM

One mountain to climb at a time, airhead. We’re working our way down our list of things to do. And the checkoffs are occurring faster and faster as we go. Just because you don’t see progress, don’t mean it ain’t happenin’. Man, your attitude sucks a Big Red One.

Subsunk

Bush is at fault for any problems in his administration. He is the Commander-In-Chief.

However, if you want to see if he was negligent, which is a different matter, you need to look at the decision making process. Did Bush take the advice of his military advisors. As I recall, his highest military advisors were against the surge. Indeed, Casey, while in Iraq, was scornfull of the approach. Others implied that Petraeus would not be getting all his troops in country before the surge was supposed to be over. Indee,d the surge started late and without all resources in country.

So, is Bush negligent because he overulled his highest military advisors, even though the surge is working? or is he negligent because he listened to his highest military advisors for to long before ordering the surge.

How much of that money is spent in the US economy?

“…And the same goes for undermining the war effort- the Democrats never had any control over the war or real influence over Bush. Why do you need to worry about anyone interfering in the war, when before the surge, Bush made every strategic error possible to ensure the US couldn’t quickly succeed in Iraq?….”

Fantasy, pure fantasy. The Democrats voted to go to war. The Dem sleezership then did everything in their power to undermine the effort. I would not be surprised to read that evidence has surfaced showing the resistance in Iraq continued because of the Demonrats constant claims of defeat and calling for retreat (sorry redeployment) to Okinawa.

Democrats tried every trick in the book to bankrupt our military operations, while our country was at war!

The only person leading this country toward bankruptcy is George Bush, who people seem to believe took the US into a “free” war. When all the dust has settled, Bush will have increased the federal debt at the rate of $10,000 per man, woman, and child citizen of the entire country.

And the same goes for undermining the war effort- the Democrats never had any control over the war or real influence over Bush. Why do you need to worry about anyone interfering in the war, when before the surge, Bush made every strategic error possible to ensure the US couldn’t quickly succeed in Iraq?

It seems like it’s premature to start declaring ‘mission accomplished’ all over again.

They, and the MSM, want him to explode in their face.

Let the Dems claim victory (for their own sleazy political reasons) just so American can lose it all when Obama brings everyone home. Still a short sighted policy.

This is what infuriates me about this White House. They deserve nothing but our scorn for doing everything possible to ensure our defeat. Damn them all to Hell.

SouthernGent

White House?

Anyway, you can be sure McCain will not allow anyone on the Left to steal his one thunder of fame– the Surge credit. He’ll explode in their face if they try that one!

point taken but what would it mean if Hill is the candidate? don’t count her out yet.

I resemble that remark!!! How you be tonite mb4?
I just can’t believe the audacity of these dems….amazing.

for having provided the funds that paid for the surge and for the new chance Iraqis are getting.

Build a Muslim a fire and he will be warm for the night. Set a Muslim on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

and your point is??? lol!!! just kiddng! hehe

jerrytbg on June 2, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Why a four year old child could understand the point. Someone go fetch us a child of four.
- Groucho

That said, Kanjorski’s position is one Hillary might have been able to use in the general election, because as the race has panned out, she’s not the candidate of the far left, Obama is. But he can’t possibly use that argument without prompting cries of anguish from his base and accusations of being a sellout for giving the surge even the slightest bit of credit for succeeding. Change now, and all of Barack’s recent problems in judgment that his fans and the media have been willing to look past (similar to how they looked past Bill and Hillary’s troubles for 15 years) may suddenly start popping up from disgruntled sources, who think they’re being sold down the river again.

Look for:

“WE MADE THE SURGE HAPPEN!”

signs at the Denver Convention.

They shed the concept of shame around 1969.

(It sank at Chappaquidick, I heard.)

about just how wrong the Dims have been on every issue, especially Iraq.

AZCoyote on June 2, 2008 at 8:12 PM

The certainly do.

Have not read it yet but have just ordered it upon Allahpundit’s sideways suggestion: “War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism” by D. Feith.

From the summaries and reviews, there is a great shortcoming of the administration that Firth brings up: its complete abdication of the responsibility for refuting and standing up against the lies and leaks headlined in the liberal media.

The Weekly Standard for years has been a lone wolf crying out for the administration to stand up for what it knows to be true about the war.

They never have. I’ve given up hope that they ever will.

It’s not enough to know that history will prove them right. I’d like to see it stuck in the face of the dims before I die.

If Bush wants to encourage them to stay the course, he should grit his teeth and start congratulating them in his speeches for having provided the funds that paid for the surge and for the new chance Iraqis are getting. No time for pride.

Agreed.

Will the Democrats who aren’t douchebags please stand up?

Could not agree with you more.

tomk59 on June 2, 2008 at 7:29 PM

You’re so right. Letting Dims take credit for the surge, when they were doing everything they could to stop it, would be foolish. They were dead wrong, and they cannot be allowed to evade responsibility now for their cut-and-run defeatism of the past few years.
Most voters pay very little attention to what is going on in the world; they read headlines, and that’s about it. Letting the Dims grab credit for the surge in the interests of bi-partisanship may sound high-minded, but it’s not. Allowing them to control the narrative has political consequences. If their incompetence is not exposed to the voters, then the Dims get re-elected, and this country cannot afford to have these fools in charge of our defense or our economy. Voters need to be reminded, forcefully and frequently, about just how wrong the Dims have been on every issue, especially Iraq.