'Legitimate concerns' about arming Iraqi rebels: US commander(Petreaus deployment could be a decade)

[maddezmom]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Coalition commander General David Petraeus said Sunday there were "legitimate concerns" about a new US tactic in Iraq of arming Sunni insurgents against Al-Qaeda extremists.

But speaking on Fox News after criticism of the tactic from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Petraeus said it was still a viable way of pressing the fight in Iraq against Al-Qaeda.

Asked if the US-supplied weapons could later be turned on US forces or Shiite Muslims, the general said: "Well, those are legitimate concerns, and we have the same concerns."

But he said that US military commanders were trying to vet their new local allies "as best we can" through compiling biometric data and keeping track of weapons serial numbers.

~snip~

In comments published Saturday by Newsweek magazine, Maliki warned that the new US tactic was "dangerous because this will create new militias."

"I believe that the coalition forces do not know the backgrounds of the tribes. It is a job of the (Iraqi) government," he added.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070617/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitarypetraeusmaliki_070617144246

---

Iraq deployment could last a decade: US
The US commander in Iraq says American troops could be needed in the country for a decade to battle insurgents.

General David Petraeus has told Fox News there is broad recognition that Iraq's daunting challenges will not be resolved "in a year or even two years".

"In fact, typically, I think historically, counter-insurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years," he said.

General Petraeus was responding to a question about whether US forces could face a Korea-style deployment in Iraq for decades.

He said any long-term deployment would depend on whether the Iraqi Government wanted to extend the US military presence.

"I'm not sure what the right analogy is, whether it's Korea or what have you," he said.

But he emphasised that a long-term security arrangement was "probably a fairly realistic assessment".

more:http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1953696.htm

U.S. should stop arming Sunni militias - PM Maliki

BAGHDAD, June 17 (Reuters) - The United States runs the risk of creating new militias in Iraq if it arms Sunni Arab tribesmen indiscriminately to battle al Qaeda, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.

In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Maliki gave the first indication his government disagrees with the U.S. military policy of arming and equipping Sunni Arab tribes to fight al Qaeda militants under a model first used in Anbar province.

"We want to arm some tribes that want to side with us but on condition that we should be well aware of the tribe's background and sure that it is not connected with terror," Maliki said.

"Some (U.S.) field commanders make mistakes since they do not know the facts about people they deal with. I believe the Coalition forces do not know the background of the tribes," he told Newsweek on Friday.

"They make mistakes by arming tribes sometimes, and this is dangerous because this will create new militias," he said.

Maliki also appeared to reject criticism of his government's performance in meeting three key political benchmarks aimed at promoting national reconciliation between majority Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, who were dominant under Saddam Hussein and who now form the backbone of Iraq's bloody insurgency.

more:http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL751037.htm

[babylonsister]

1. Dammit, then stop arming them!!

:banghead: :banghead:

[pheasant]

2. Everything in war is a gamble

If they ask for arms to defend themselves and we turn them down then what will some say when Al Queda murders these tribes for even daring to ask for weapons to turn on them and take their country back without depending on us.

[Nickster]

3. You're missing the history of these tribes, they work similar to Afghanistan. They will work for the

highest bidder and they always have. We dump money and arms on them, then the warlord decides that he got all he can from the US, then moves on to Al-Qaeda and says, "Ok, we're open to what you have to offer". Rinse, lather, and repeat.

A lot of what's going on in Iraq is tribes trying to fill the power vacuum in their respective tribal areas, so the leader doesn't have allegiance to anyone other than their own power. They will take arms and money from anyone and then use them to cement their own control over a region. This means that they will not submit to a central gov't like we are pushing on Iraq. We are helping to put guns in the hands of criminals who only care about themselves and ultimately will use our guns and money to undermine anything we tried to do in Iraq. They will not help us to fight Al-Qaeda unless Al-Qaeda tries to take away control of that warlord's region.

Remember, we entrusted local warlord's at Tora Bora, we threw money at them and you see how that worked out. They escorted OBL into Pakistan.

[Barrett808]

5. What's missing in this narrative is the fact that "al Qaeda in Iraq" isn't "al Qaeda" or even...

...a significant percentage of the insurgency.

This means we are directly arming the Sunni insurgency, which is certainly not lost on the Shi'a. This suggests to me that we're siding with Saudi Arabia in a nascent proxy war against Iran.

[Karenina]

4. WHAT? And forego all that $$$??? NO CHANCE.

Here's the plan. Arm EVERYBODY, run as many false flags as you can to exacerbate the internal conflicts, enhance every possibility of fratricide that presents itself, call anyone with a gun "Al Kidja," STARVE, SICKEN AND BRUTALIZE the civilian population and PRESTO! INSTANT DEPOPULATION!!!

Makes it easier to keep pumping out that unmetered oil.