Small Wars Journal

Insurgent Media vs. The Strongest Tribe

Sat, 07/07/2007 - 4:25pm
In an analysis entitled "Iraqi Insurgent Media: The War of Images and Ideas", Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Ridolfo of Radio Free Europe examined 966 statements posted on websites by insurgent groups. They concluded that the statements "used religion-based, pejorative code words for the targets of the attacks." The insurgent groups coalesced around a narrative that depicted US forces as Christian crusaders, the Iraqi Army as traitors to Islam and the Shiites as heretics - all deserving death in the name of religion.

Sunni insurgent groups that call themselves "the honorable resistance" rebelled against American occupation and rejected democracy with a Shiite majority. After four years of fighting, many of these rejectionists have reluctantly concluded they cannot wrest central power from the upstart Shiites. Knowing the Americans do not intend to stay, they now fear that Qaeda extremists will become their rulers. Many of these fighters supposedly can be reconciled.

Anbar illustrates this point of view. Even as insurgent Web sites persist in endorsing jihad, attacks against American forces have substantially declined. How to account for this gap between rhetoric and reality? In the judgment of Marine Brigadier General John R. Allen, who leads the effort to support the tribes in Anbar, "jihad rhetoric probably comes from a fairly finite collection of tech savvy jihadis both here in Iraq as well as across the Web... The tribes know what they have done (by attacking al Qaeda) and the risks they will face for years to come."

It's conventional wisdom now to say that Anbar improved because the Sunni tribes aligned against al Qaeda. True enough, but an incomplete explanation. With inadequate manpower, the Marines and Army National Guard and active duty soldiers persisted year after year with gritty, relentless patrolling that convinced the tribes the American military was, as one tribal leader said to me, "the strongest tribe". Hence the tribes could turn against al Qaeda, knowing they had the strongest tribe standing behind them.

But why join "the strongest tribe" if it is migrating back to the States? In Anbar, the Marines are trying to cement relations between the tribes, the police chiefs and the local Iraqi Army battalion commanders so that, with American advisers, they will support one another - and be supported by the Shiite-dominated central government. "They (the tribes in Anbar)," Allen wrote me recently, "expect their government to assist in rebuilding their cities and giving their children a better life. They expect security and expect to have their own young men and women incorporated into this security."

Comments

liontooth (not verified)

Mon, 07/09/2007 - 11:38am

Michael Yon has noted the Anbar tribe observation recently in Baqubah:

"In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can--more or less and with giant caveats--rely on."

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Ed Morrisey from Captain Quarters blog notes that Sadr is believed to have bugged out to Iran:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010473.php

Has Petraeus and 'the Surge' gotten not only al Qaeda on the run but now the shiite militias are starting to 'feel the love'?

michael ledeen (not verified)

Sat, 07/07/2007 - 11:05pm

Bing, it may be that the tribal leaders believe that we are going to win before we leave. After all, the outcome of a guerrilla war is determined by the "bet" the people make, on who is going to win. It seems they are betting on us, and they have jumped to be on the winning bandwagon.

In like manner, if that is their bet, it would be reasonable for them to believe that, before we leave, we will create a suitable government for them.

I hope they're right.