Awakening Update

| Mon May. 4, 2009 8:13 AM PDT

The Sunni Awakening played a major role in the reduction of violence in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, as Sunni tribes that had been fighting the government turned their attention to fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq instead.  So how's that working out?  In Anbar Province, Liz Sly of the LA Times reports that things look pretty hopeful:

"The Awakening is an economic and political entity now, and our strategy is financial and economic," said Abu Risha, who has led the Awakening since his brother's assassination in 2007....Here in Anbar province, birthplace of the Awakening movement, the Sunni Arab paramilitaries who turned their guns on fellow Sunni insurgents have become the government.

....It promises to be quite a transformation for a movement that started out in 2006 as a tribal uprising against the insurgents who had sought to impose a vicious interpretation of Islamic law on the western desert province. Photographs on Abu Risha's wall show his slain brother, Abdul-Sattar, who founded the movement, dressed in robes, slung with bullets and surrounded by Kalashnikov-wielding militiamen.

In Baghdad and Mosul, however, the London Times reports that the news is grim:

A leading member of the Political Council of Iraqi Resistance, which represents six Sunni militant groups, said: “The resistance has now returned to the field and is intensifying its attacks against the enemy. The number of coalition forces killed is on the rise.”

The increase in attacks by such groups, combined with a spate of bombings blamed on Al-Qaeda, has had a chilling effect on the streets of Iraq. More than 370 Iraqi civilians and military — and 80 Iranian pilgrims — lost their lives in April, making it the bloodiest month since last September. On Wednesday, five car bombs exploded in a crowded market in Sadr City, Baghdad, killing 51 people and injuring 76. Three US soldiers were killed on Thursday and two more yesterday when a gunman in Iraqi army uniform opened fire near Mosul.

Broadly speaking, this is the result of a missed opportunity.  The point of the surge was to provide "breathing space" for political reconciliation, but Nouri al-Maliki, for reasons that are ultimately unknowable, either couldn't or wouldn't take advantage of it.  In Anbar, the Sunni tribes acquired political power and the Awakening is still a going concern.  In Baghdad, they were shut out, and violence is on the rise.

It's not clear to me that there's anything the United States can do about this.  It's true that George Bush's open-ended commitment to Iraq probably reduced the pressure on Maliki to make concessions to the Sunnis — after all, why bother if the Americans are going to be around forever to protect you? — but aside from that Petraeus and Crocker and the rest of the Bush team worked pretty hard to press Maliki into coming up with a political settlement that was broadly agreeable to all.  He didn't.  American influence just wasn't enough to make a difference then, and it probably isn't now.  This is still, at root, a political problem, not a military one.  It's up to Maliki to solve it, not the U.S. Army.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Sunni Awakening in context

I've always had grave doubts about the popular view of what was called the Sunni Awakening. Anytime somebody took a serious look at al-Qaeda in Iraq, they did not find much. For example, see this article published by you old employer, the Washington Monthly. The Sunnis, and there leaders, were not about to let foreigners come into their countryside, set up camp and wreak havoc, unless that havoc was closely controlled by the home boys, not al-Qaeda. Now, if it appears convenient for some home boys to occasionally call themselves al-Qaeda, I suppose they would. But al-Qaeda in Iraq appears to have always been greatly exaggerated as a real force to be dealt with. Indeed, the big problem presented to the American public was definitely the Sunni insurrection until *suddenly* everybody in the Bush administration, as well as General Patraeus, began talking al-Qaeda 24-7. This leads to the conclusion that the Sunni Awakening is also misleading. How about viewing the situation in this context: Saddam is overthrown; the United States military primarily takes sides with the Shiites; eventually an Iraqi government and constitution are established without Sunni participation; a particular faction of Shiites (Maliki) gains control of the Iraqi government, supported by the U.S. military; Sunnis are expelled (possibly even “cleansed”) from certain Bagdad neighborhoods; the Sunnis continue to take it on the chin; the Sunnis eventually realize that they can buy time and actually get some breathing room by cutting deals with the U. S. military against an enemy (al-Qaeda) that is not much of a threat anyway. And you are right; a political settlement incorporating the Sunnis was never seriously attempted by Maliki or anybody else. Under the scenario spun above, the Sunni Awakening was all about survival and buying time, not al-Qaeda. In other words, surviving Maliki and the U.S. military, not al-Qaeda. The question in my mind is “how much fight and capability do the Sunnis have left in them”? When the U.S. military leaves, we may find out. I’m pretty sure that, long-term, the Sunnis cannot live under the current constitution.

Sunni Awakening in context

I’ve always had grave doubts about the popular view of what was called the Sunni Awakening. Anytime somebody took a serious look at al-Qaeda in Iraq, they did not find much. For example, see this article published by your old employer, the Washington Monthly. The Sunnis, and there leaders, were not about to let foreigners come into their countryside, set up camp and wreak havoc unless that havoc was closely controlled by the home boys, not al-Qaeda. Now, if it appears convenient for some home boys to occasionally call themselves al-Qaeda, I suppose they would. But al-Qaeda in Iraq appears to have always been greatly exaggerated as a real force to be dealt with. Indeed, the big problem presented to the American public was definitely the Sunni insurrection until *suddenly* everybody in the Bush administration, as well as General Patraeus, began talking al-Qaeda 24-7. This leads to the conclusion that the Sunni Awakening is also misleading. How about viewing the situation in this context: Saddam is overthrown; the United States military primarily takes sides with the Shiites; eventually an Iraqi government and constitution are established without Sunni participation; a particular faction of Shiites (Maliki) gains control of the Iraqi government, supported by the U.S. military; Sunnis are expelled (possibly even “cleansed”) from certain Bagdad neighborhoods; the Sunnis continue to take it on the chin; the Sunnis eventually realize that they can buy time and actually get some breathing room by cutting deals with the U. S. military against an enemy (al-Qaeda) that is not much of a threat anyway. And you are right; a political settlement incorporating the Sunnis was never seriously attempted by Maliki or anybody else. Under the scenario spun above, the Sunni Awakening was all about survival and buying time, not about al-Qaeda. In other words, surviving Maliki and the U.S. military, not al-Qaeda. The question in my mind is “how much fight and capability do the Sunnis have left in them”? When the U.S. military leaves, we may find out. I’m pretty sure that, long-term, the Sunnis cannot live under the current constitution.

which subgroups get what.

Isn't that what this is mainly about. For reasons of propaganda various actors -especially the previous administration have liked to throw out emotion laden labels, such as Al Qaeda and terrorists, but this is really just the different subgroups trying to establish who gets what. Other than trying to tone down the level of violence, and trying to provide the means for talks and deals to be made, I don't think there is much constructive that we can do. They will sort it among themselves eventually. For the most part we should get out of the way of the process.

Liz Sly

A-hem ... She's "Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune," not "Liz Sly of the LA Times." Just because she works for a conglomerate, doesn't mean she's chosen to forgo cold winters for the ocean! Hands off!

complicated

This is a complicated situation, but we should not be running the show over there anymore (or after the stated deadline), almost everyone should be withdrawn, though we should retain a presence on the horizon, as well as covert counter-terrorism teams, because as poor a place Bush has left us in, we must by all means assure that the Iraq government continues to stand, or at least some Iraqi government continues to stand (Iraqi choice, not ours), and preferably one that is not sympathetic or in league with Al Qaeda or other radical terrorists, because chaos in that area would not be a favorable development for world peace, security, or prosperity. In this effort, we may very well require Iran's assistance, so continuing to villify them is severely counterproductive (though continuing to criticize them is our duty, but there's some right ways and a lot more wrong ways to go about this, let's pick a right way).

Wasn't it more of a Sunni

Wasn't it more of a Sunni bribing than an awakening? Could be Nouri al-Maliki decided to put the pay of the 54000 Awakeners into a Swiss bank account when the responsibility for bribing Sunnis devolved on the Iraq government, praise be to Allah. Allah's blessing and salutations on His slave and messenger. Iraq is after all just about the most corrupt nation in the world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/200810151630737451.... News Middle East Baghdad to pay Sunni groups ...The Iraqi government is to take responsibility for paying members of the country's Awakening councils, Sunni groups who had allied with US forces to fight al-Qaeda. The government of Nuri al-Maliki, which is dominated by Shia religious parties, is to begin paying 54,000 Awakening members from Tuesday.

thnks for your post. it's

thnks for your post. it's wonderful.....

Swiss bank accounts

today nothing is safe for us residents, but i think the banks aren't willing to help the us government, but only in cases they have to do something. I can recommend swiss bank account opening at http://open-bank-account.com

links

thnks for your post. it's wonderful.....

I went over to the comments

I went over to the comments thread at CNN and discovered to my amazement that the vast majority of posters were turned off by the speech. A lot of them claimed to be independents. I am not too worried about the speech.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.