Arming rival gangs in Iraq undermines US security

One of the many absurdities of the US occupation of Iraq is the fact that we are pumping weapons into the civil war we're ostensibly trying to prevent.

This position paper from the National Security Network lays out some of this strategy's major drawbacks:

The U.S. has used this tactic in the past, arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s. Those “allies” later formed the leadership of Al Qaeda. Moreover, the U.S. is now training security forces, who are primarily Shi’a and at the same time arming Sunni tribal groups that hate Al Qaeda but also hate the Shi’a. In essence this approach amounts to arming both sides in a civil war. Empowering these tribal groups, most of whom oppose the Maliki government, also undermines the President’s “surge” strategy. The plan calls for fostering political reconciliation among the various groups – not arming them to fight each other. In fact, the “Anbar Strategy” directly contradicts General Petraeus’s United States Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which states that “Counterinsurgents should avoid taking sides, when possible. Perceived favoritism can exacerbate civil strife and make counterinsurgents more desirable targets for sectarian violence.” [NSN]

I think the report is being unfair to General Petraeus by quoting him out of context. The relevant passage in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual comes from Chapter 5: Information Operations:

5-25. Impartiality is a common theme for information activities when there are political, social, and sectarian divisions in the host nation. Counterinsurgents should avoid taking sides, when possible. Perceived favoritism can exacerbate civil strife and make counterinsurgents more desirable targets for sectarian violence. [CFM]

Still, if it's unwise to take sides in propaganda, it's probably an even worse idea to pass out guns to our preferred factions.

A lot of people think that the United States owes it to Iraq to stay and prevent civil war.  In fact, we're exacerbating the civil war by our presence and by actively arming factions that are trying to take down the government we nominally support.

Comments

[Count Zero]

Why would we want to end the civil war? We're spending billions of dollars yearly to benefit a handfull of people and corporations. Why stop the gravey train? Our government wants confrontion - not to end confrontation.

[Cass]

This was inevitable, once our brilliant leaders found out the government they'd installed was by no means interesting in following their dictation. The Sunnis, of course, have already demonstrated their own indifference to neocon dreams; but hope springs eternal in a failing empire.

[Dave]

This is news to you?

It has always been US policy.

Hell, in Somalia, we would confiscate weapons from one militia and then give them to another.

We train them and equip them then act surprised when they turn on us for getting involved in their politics.

This is nothing new at all.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

It's not news. The US armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan...

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

It's important to point out the things we're doing to make the situation worse.

These facts just don't get enough exposure in the established media.

The government engineered a collective panic by claiming that a couple of IEDs might have been manufactured in Iran. Whereas the US is missing thousands of weapons that are being turned on US troops and their Iraqi allies. Who's really arming the terrorists here?

If we're worsening a civil war, that undercuts the rationale for staying to prevent a civil war.

[Count Zero]

If we're worsening a civil war, that undercuts the rationale for staying to prevent a civil war.

Makes a great pretext to invade Iran as long as you casually blame them for arming Iraqis. Who needs proof the weapons are actually US supplied, and who is going to prove it?

[dave]

The fact that it isn't out there in the mainstream shouldn't be a shock either.

My friends mother saved every newspaper from the time I left the states to when I returned from Somalia. No one was reporting any of the fighting going on there. The papers made it sound like it was a cake walk. Hell half of America didn't know we were there until the Oct. 3rd Battle of Mogadishu took place.

[herbert browne]

Perhaps arming the Middle East is a neocon solution to perceived overpopulation there... as well as a way to move old armaments & obsolescent military inventory to justify new purchases... ^..^

[dave]

The reality of it is that we have sent shipments of new weapons to the Iraqi police and 75% percent of those weapons are unaccounted for.

[mudkitty]

Hey Dave, can't you tell the difference between shock and outrage? Anyway, what's it to you?

[Michael Hussey]

This is the Salvador option. William Casey was so obsessed with the spread of communism. He didn't care what metjods were used. He was worried about the infamous domino theory. What happened was the United States policy caused countless deaths in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

The Pentagon can't control Blackwater. They haven't stopped Pentagon-backed Iraqi militias from forming death squads. But maybe that was never their intention.

[Dave]

Hey Dave, can't you tell the difference between shock and outrage? Anyway, what's it to you?

What's it to me? If I recall correctly you are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter so STFU!

[Count Zero]

He was worried about the infamous domino theory. What happened was the United States policy caused countless deaths in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

Don't forget Chile.