Awakening Leader: Your Money or Your Life

I didn't see this AFP story last week:

The Iraqi officer leading a U.S.-financed anti-jihadist group is in no mood for small talk -- either the military gives him more money or he will pack his bags and rejoin the ranks of al-Qaeda.

"I'll go back to al-Qaeda if you stop backing the Sahwa (Awakening) groups," Col. Satar tells U.S. Lt. Matthew McKernon, as he tries to secure more funding for his men to help battle the anti-U.S. insurgents.

This, I think, does more than a little to underscore the limits of the "bribe our former enemies to be our friends" approach to Iraq. Of course, though the limits are real so are the possibilities. If keeping these guys on the payroll indefinitely were really crucial to American national security, I'm pretty sure we could find a way to work things out for quite a while. But it really isn't crucial to American national security. Having insurgents not shooting at US troops is much preferable to the previous situation, but insofar as the safety of our soldiers is the primary concern then getting the soldiers out of Iraq is a much more reasonable long-term strategy.

The "cash for allies" approach makes sense as a way to make a military presence more sustainable in a place where the presence is strategically important. But for some time now, the main strategic purpose of our presence in Iraq seems to be simply to sustain our presence in Iraq. That's not a good enough reason.

Comments

Matt: if we don't stay in Iraq and keep paying him, he'll follow us home.

Posted by mark | July 29, 2008 3:36 PM

"I'll go back to al-Qaeda if you stop backing the Sahwa (Awakening) groups,"

Where's that dumbass troll to tell us that the US only ever recruiting "moderates" for the Awakening?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 3:37 PM

The SUURRRGGGGE is WOOOOOORRRRRKING! Why won't Obama admit that he was wrong and McCain was right?

Posted by douchebag | July 29, 2008 3:39 PM

"But for some time now, the main strategic purpose of our presence in Iraq seems to be simply to sustain our presence in Iraq. That's not a good enough reason."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Somewhere John McCain is rolling over in his grave.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 3:42 PM

Well the British stayed in India for a few hundred years by strategically bribing the local maharajas and nawabs. The bribes were well worth it as they later forced the same idiots to pay monetary tributes.

Posted by gregor | July 29, 2008 3:45 PM

Are we at the point where we either continue giving the sunnis tax dollars or do we step out of the way and let Maliki take care of business?

Posted by jerri | July 29, 2008 3:46 PM

"for some time now, the main strategic purpose of our presence in Iraq seems to be simply to sustain our presence in Iraq."

Proof that the lessons of NASA's manned space program can be applied broadly.

Posted by Brian Schmidt | July 29, 2008 3:48 PM

Seems about par for the course for U.S. foreign policy, just on a smaller scale.

Posted by Ben Brown | July 29, 2008 4:09 PM

The joke in Afghanistan was "You can't buy an Afghan's loyalty - but you can rent it!"

Posted by Scott Ferguson | July 29, 2008 4:16 PM

Are we at the point where we either continue giving the sunnis tax dollars or do we step out of the way and let Maliki take care of business?

yeah I'm beginning to think the Shia aren't ready to forgive and forget and will ethnically cleanse this Sunni general and his buddies.

The question is whether the Sunni Saudis and Shia Iranians will enter the mix. And the Turks in the north.

And then the global economy will tank and we will comfort ourselvess by placing all of the blame on Bush.

Or maybe they'll work out a modus vivendi.

Posted by Peter K. | July 29, 2008 4:24 PM

In retrospect, bribing Saddam Hussein with a couple billion $ to keep his patch of dirt clean seems might have been a wise investment.

Posted by shecky | July 29, 2008 4:30 PM

Fair enough, but it's worth pointing out that this threat is probably mostly a bluff. After all, American bribes weren't the main reason these groups deserted Al Qaeda. The (well known)fact is that Al Qaeda became incredibly unpopular with Sunnis because of their pesky habit of indiscriminately killing Iraqis who irritated them. The fundamentals of this situtation hasn't changed. So while he may be willing to follow up on his threat to the point of resuming hostilities with U.S. forces, it's unlikely that he would return to Al Qaeda in fact or in spirit.

Posted by NCS | July 29, 2008 4:32 PM

In retrospect, bribing Saddam Hussein with a couple billion $ to keep his patch of dirt clean seems might have been a wise investment.

I know, right? He knew how to keep the majority Shia and Kurds in line.

Posted by Peter K. | July 29, 2008 4:43 PM

it's worth pointing out that this threat is probably mostly a bluff

The Al Qaeda part might be a bluff but there is nothing to stop the Colonel from returning to the insurgency business claiming tribal or nationalistic motivations.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | July 29, 2008 4:52 PM

I guess remembering the line, "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute" would be in bad taste.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 29, 2008 4:53 PM

Umm, yeah, that's exactly what I said at the end of that comment.

Posted by NCS | July 29, 2008 4:55 PM

In retrospect, bribing Saddam Hussein with a couple billion $ to keep his patch of dirt clean seems might have been a wise investment.

Are you kidding? Of course it would be a wise investment. What do you think we're doing in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, etc.?

The problem was Hussein didn't just want to keep his patch of dirt clean; he wanted to expand it, both territorially (invasion of Kuwait, which could easily have been followed by invasion of Saudi Arabia) and militarily. He had all the billions we could ever give him but it wasn't enough to keep him sitting on his hands like most of the other Middle Eastern leaders.

Posted by right | July 29, 2008 6:07 PM

"...insofar as the safety of our soldiers is the primary concern..." speaks volumes in terms of lefty cluelessness which fuels the perennial view of American voters that Dems can't be trusted with national security.

If the safety of our soldiers is the primary concern, we have no business maintaining armed forces. The military is not a jobs program for poor rednecks and other minorities. It is supposed to fight, and die if necessary, when the duly elected government decides it's in the national interest that they do so. The fact that some nimrods don't understand that a reasonably stable Iraq was, is, and will be for some time a vital national interest, and that the military has an appropriate role there, doesn't change much.

Posted by robert powell | July 30, 2008 6:56 AM

You didn't see that story last week because you don't read the emails I send you, nitwit.

That story was sent to you on 07/25/2008 at 11:41 PM, according to my email folder.

If you'd read my fucking emails, you wouldn't be the clueless loser wannabe pundit you are.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 31, 2008 4:58 AM