Iraq's Gunmen Morphing Into Men In Suits

Allen Pizzey: Shiite Militias Are Setting Up Social Networks, Following Hezbollah's Example

(CBS)  From CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey in Baghdad.

---

Iraq is a place that often defines "self-fulfilling prophecy," especially the one that begins "Be careful what you wish for..."

For several years a fervent wish of the U.S. military and diplomatic efforts here has been to blunt if not negate the military strength of the Mahdi Army, which is nominally under the control of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

But just at the point where that wish is about to come true, those in the movement have shifted from gunmen to Iraq's equivalent of men in suits.

U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker warned a few days ago that elements of the Mahdi Army have forsaken military activities in favor of financial enterprises such as control of gas stations and basic services in Shiite neighborhoods.

The move suggests what Crocker called a "Hezbollahzation" of parts of Iraq, a reference to an emphasis on social networks as a base of strength that has been the hallmark of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The predicament for the Americans is that any effort to curtail that process can cost them support in the street. In many Shiite areas people both welcome and rely on the social work of the Mahdi Army for services and help the government does not provide.

"If they arrest people who are Mahdi Army but who are not doing military things, people will not like them for it," said one resident of a neighborhood where the Americans are trying to crack down. The sweeps also tend to collect suspects regardless of age.

"When they arrest a 16-year-old person for example," the resident said, "It angers many people, because we all have sons or brothers or cousins who are that age, and we know they could be arrested too, even if they have nothing to do with the Mahdi Army."

The military disputes that it detains anyone without good reason, and maintains that when mistakes are made they are quickly rectified. The problem is that committing errors is much easier that rectifying them.

Indeed, Sheik Assad al-Nasseri, a representative of Muqtada al-Sadr, warned during his during Friday sermon in the holy city of Kufa that a moratorium on Shiite militia activities could end if U.S. and Iraqi forces continue with detention campaigns against the movement.

But the operations seem to be continuing unabated. During a pre-dawn raid in a Shiite area this week an American officer who encountered an English-speaking resident (who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified) told Iraqi troops to wait outside, and then told the resident that the U.S. military was setting up "an intelligence network" that did not include the Iraqi army. Agents would report directly to and be paid by U.S. forces.

If true, it is an arrangement fraught with danger. As has been amply demonstrated over and over again, the U.S. military lacks the language skills and cultural understanding to deal with the complexities Iraq's social order. This population is steeped in the ways and atmosphere of secrecy, informants and double-dealing.

"If you put an Iraqi in a corner," an interpreter working for a Western company said, "he will find a way to talk his way out. Any Iraqi can do it."

"It's not lying," the interpreter added, "it's something we learned from the time we were born, because that is how you had to live to under Saddam's rule."

What Iraqis do not know how to work is the system of restitution for damages, which means goodwill can be as hard to buy as it is to win. A case in point is the condolence payments being offered by the U.S. Embassy for victims of the shooting involving Blackwater security on September 16.

The embassy began offering payments on October 24. The embassy insists that acceptance of the payments does not mean claimants are waiving their rights to future compensation. In an e-mail response to questions by CBS News, the embassy described the money on offer this way:

"Condolence payments are not an admission of culpability. Condolence payments are simply intended to aid and support affected families on a speedy, short-term basis. The payments should not be construed as a statement about the value of human life."

But in Iraqi society payment is often seen in terms of what is called "fasil al-ashair" which translates roughly as "separation of the tribes." If a member of one tribe commits an offence against a member of another tribe, payment made in compensation is seen as final restitution, and the matter is closed.

Urbanized Iraqis, like the people killed and injured by Blackwater, may not adhere to "fasil al-ashair" as a matter of normal recourse, but neither will they dismiss it as irrelevant no matter what assurances they are given, especially by an occupier few if any trust, acting on behalf of contractors who have been placed above the law, and are hated for it.

To believe otherwise is to indulge in wishful thinking.

[speakinup]

Nancy_Naive - how often did the indian nations retreat ?

[rowdytexan2]

Sorry, Bluesx...

There are many, many young soldiers also coming home and joining the war protest. Apparently they have not visted your retail store.

Lots of these young men who''ve fought over there have become attached to the iraqi people, and want good things for them, as we all do. Their compassion and goodheartedness is very honorable. And their bravery is is uncomparable. And it is our honor to have the safe back at home.

Soldiers as has already been said, are taught to follow orders and not question. It is necessary for their safety, and it is also necessary for them to justify what they have to do in their own mind.

Their mission is an honorable one. But they are having to fight in a corrupt war, and that''s sad for all of us.

If we fight for many years to come in Iraq, the people will still not be free. It is simply a war that cannot be won, due to the corruptness on both sides, and differences among it''s own tribes. This has been going on for thousands of years.

This war was never about freeing the Iraq''s. It wasn''t even about suppressing a dictator possessing WMD''s...because they knew he didn''t have any.

All we can do right now is get them home and safe, and allow the Iraq''s to decide how they want to live.

[ziparmux]

dear friends-I am a clerk at a major retail store. I wait on A LOT of soldiers(most having been in Iraq). My main question to them is "do you feel it''''s working over there and is it worth it all?" Their 100% response is "YES!!!" I say to all the American naysayers-we''''re winning!! Iraq will be judged in the future as a shining example of peace loving,American supporting society. We need to honor those who have fallen(American and others) by continuing on with their(and our) resolve !!! God bless the USA. Winners never quit,quitters never win!!

Posted by bluezx at 01:32 AM : Oct 29, 2007

For sll the fallen in all wars, my heart goes out to them and all their families, but you surely cannot believe that you can win the war in Iraq. It will take the involvment of the whole of the world to sort out this most terrible mess. Soliders do not fight for causes, their job is to obey orders from above, not to question them. That is the way of a soldiers life and being.

[bluezx-2009]

dear friends-I am a clerk at a major retail store. I wait on A LOT of soldiers(most having been in Iraq). My main question to them is "do you feel it''s working over there and is it worth it all?" Their 100% response is "YES!!!" I say to all the American naysayers-we''re winning!! Iraq will be judged in the future as a shining example of peace loving,American supporting society. We need to honor those who have fallen(American and others) by continuing on with their(and our) resolve !!! God bless the USA. Winners never quit,quitters never win!!

[usaprophet]

I want to report a major fire, friends. CBS isn''t reporting it. Our Constitution is on fire. And it''s currently being burned in Congress. See H.R. 1955, a.k.a., Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I couldn''t believe it. Apparently, activists with Web sites are really begining to anger the elite insofar as they are publically holding officials accountable for their evil. The bill passed the house on Oct 23, in spite of Congressman, Ron Paul''s opposition. The right to free speech on the Internet is gone, my friends. Look it up for yourself, and weep for your country as I have that our rights have eroded this far. Here''s a short excerpt from the bill''s DEFINITIONS statement: "The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism." Here''s another excerpt from the bill''s FINDINGS statement: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." And guess who get''s to decide what is "terrorist-related propaganda?" You got it! The Department of Homeland Insecurity, an agency that''s answerable ONLY to The President. If Ron Paul isn''t elected, our country is doomed!

[jonstorm-2009]

U sir''s are idiot''s. Please tell us what southern rural county u rape young children in so we can deflect the enemies bomb''''s towards you. Us in the big cities the true targets of our enemies desire a different approach. One that does not obliterate us who actually posess social skillsa and the ability to change the course of history with our brains instead of our bombs.. Please do tell where you reside in this very large open country... Love to all American''''s especially those who put their lives on the line every day preferring not to cowar in the shadows but instead step on to our subways and buses exposing ourselves to the true dangers that are present.

[alphaa10-2009]

speakinup said, "I see one descrete question, followed by a question mark. The other sentences don''''t have question marks. They are called retorical questions..."
---
Here is your chance to learn what a "retorical" question represents, then to understand even these commonly use question marks. The rhetorical question is used to showcase an important point, but it is expressed as a question.

If you believe you have a question to ask, ask it as a single, clearly expressed question. Not a meandering series of disjointed editorial statements intended as "retorical" devices. Clearly, your devices blew up on you.

If you believe your several "retorical" questions need answers, try asking separate, clearly expressed questions. And then, you can get an answer to each question, in turn.

In answer to your single statement which you have said is a "question"-- you apparently believe a drop in US Iraq dead represents a turning of the tide for the Iraqi government and the Bush fiasco in Iraq. On what basis? There are many reasons not to interpret a slice of data as a turning of the tide.

[j-whitman]

downtowner97,,, It would seem the war is morphing, Bush should have listented better... Now it''s Be Carefull What You Wish For in his face -- Gunmen are wearing suits according to the article..

U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker warned a few days ago that elements of the Mahdi Army have forsaken military activities in favor of financial enterprises such as control of gas stations and basic services in Shiite neighborhoods.

The move suggests what Crocker called a "Hezbollahzation" of parts of Iraq, a reference to an emphasis on social networks as a base of strength that has been the hallmark of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The predicament for the Americans is that any effort to curtail that process can cost them support in the street. In many Shiite areas people both welcome and rely on the social work of the Mahdi Army for services and help the government does not provid

[alphaa10-2009]

Bush 101 -2
While any reduction of casualties is good, you should realize by now the insurgency and al Qaeda pick their battles. During the so-called surge, for example, insurgents simply melted away from the neighborhoods, only to return when troops left. Predictably, both insurgent and US casualties dropped during the period.

But US commenders expected as much, and some expect only permanently positioned troops will be required. It so happens Bush and Rumsfeld ignored Gen. Shinseki, who predicted the US would need several hundred thousand occupation troops. Now, the American public understands Petraeus and his public relations exercise of a troop surge is largely meaningless.

for what purpose are ANY casualties sustained by this country? One casualty is too many for a criminal fraud and a national disaster.

Your argument is to insist that fewer dead means a corner has been turned in Iraq. Those with more experience say, only a propagandist and shill would jump for that.

And you missed the entire point of the original post on partitioning to which you replied-- which is, Iraq''s future probably willl not be as Iraq.

[actornaught]

why is the US death rate the lowest it has bee in 3 and a half years ?
Posted by speakinup at 06:06 PM : Oct 27, 2007

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx
...
No, the current death rate is just getting back to pre-surge "normal".

Where do you get 3 1/2 years???

Posted by actornaught at 07:05 PM : Oct 27, 2007

speakinup, are you having trouble following your own thread?

YES, i deny there''s a drastic decline, see above partial repost, including your own unsupportable claims. So your repeated question isn''t even valid.

[downtowner97]

I should say that I am very happy fewer Americans are dying at the moment. Anyone would be. I can''t, however, say I was more excited about the war in February 2004 when only 20 US troops died than I was in November 2004 when 137 US troops died. It has been the same pointless war since the first day.

[downtowner97]

I''ll answer your question. You say the only explanation for the lower number of US troop deaths is that Iraqis are tired of those who want to harm us, and have decided to take our side and accept us as liberators. That fits well with the party line and the preachings of Rush, Hannity, Bill and our president and vice president, but there were also drastic declines in troop deaths at other times since the invasion followed by large increases in US troop deaths.

There is no indication from any general who was in Iraq at any time since the invasion except for Patraeus who thinks we are winning over the Iraqi people. The Mahdi Army is seen as being a bunch of heroes for providing basic services to the Iraqi people, in spite of the fact those same people are arrested daily by US troops. The Kurds, who we have no control over, are attacking Turkey, our ally right now. There are at any given time, parts of Iraq US soldiers avoid completely.

You won''t be happy until we concede that you''re right that we''ve pacified Iraq and won over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and the facts just don''t support it. The number of US troop deaths is just one statistic coming out of a very complex quagmire.

[speakinup]

actornaught - you are correct, mar 06 is one person less according to my chart.

So, do you deny that there seems to be a drastic decline in the number of US deaths ?

What do you attribute that to ? Good luck. The troops getting better a dodging bullets. Just maybe our new plan is working ? (note descrete question at the end would be the one I''d like answered, for those of you unable to handle two questions, (alphaa10.)

[speakinup]

"As for "dodging", I must hear a single, discrete question before I can dodge the question. alphaa10

So alphaa10 - below is the complete text in which I posed my question. I see one descrete question, followed by a question mark. The other sentences don''t have question marks. They are called retorical questions.

"alphaa10 - one question - since we are doing so badly there - why is the US death rate the lowest it has been in 3 and a half years ?

"Is it because the locals have had enough indescriminent killing by the Al Qaeda, and are now turning to our side. That they love democracy and voting for their leader as was shown in their elections.

"You are all wet, liberal - go back to the drawing boards for your propaganda message - this one don''''t cut it. Posted by speakinup.

actornaught check out this web site: http://icasualties.org/oif/ 3rd chart down left side entitled "U.S. Deaths By Month/Year:"

[downtowner97]

Yes, Bush and Cheney both changed a great deal, and the majority of the people in their party inexplicably changed with them. Bush himself says we have enemies all over the world, but he''s committed our entire military as well as money we don''t have to fighting one enemy. That enemy is laying in a grave with a broken neck, yet we still fight as if our existence depends on it. It''s hard to understand.

[alphaa10-2009]

downtowner97 said, "Cheney the prophet: I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious..."
---
Cheney sounds rational here-- which argues for his current, failing grasp of reality. Paranoia is not a term to use lightly. Many who knew Cheney then and now are quite worried about the transformation.

The paradox is this-- based on his experience with GOP presidents and their foreign policies, Cheney might have told Bush not even to think about invasion. "Saddam may have tried to kill your father with a missile at the Rome airport, and we have fought a war with him since then, but we have to realize he is our best hope at keeping the Iranians in Iran. Even your father understood he needed to send Saddam little gifts like nerve gas for his amusement to keep him in our camp."

Yet, it was Cheney, by most accounts who pushed Bush for an invasion. Bush was the boy king who needed an avuncular hand on his shoulder, and became easy prey for Cheney and his neocon circles.

Thus, Dr. Strangelove applies. it was Cheney who underwent some very destructive weirdness, for which this country only has begun to pay.

[alphaa10-2009]

speakinup said, "I noticed you dodged the question. ''''no'''' is not an answer to the question I posed..."
---
Your question was "Do I believe...? You took a rambling series of propositions and tried to make it into a single question. Which proposition did you want me to address? Mine was the only answer your comments permitted.

As for "dodging", I must hear a single, discrete question before I can dodge the question.

Your analogy that Maliki may be weak but "freedom loving" Iraqis could be behind him, nonetheless, is certainly possible. However, polls of Iraqis do not find a groundswell of support for him. Maliki quarrels with even his Shia base, for example, and they reward him with mutual contempt, as they did his predecessor.

You tried an analogy to show Bush can be a weak president and still have "freedom loving" citizens behind him", which is certainly possible. However, popular support is not probable, based on opinion polls about Bush and Iraq. Liberals, for example, consider themselves especially freedom loving, but they also consider Bush worse than weak. Thus, it is far more likely freedom loving citizens are not behind Bush, at least in this country. And this is where your analogy falls apart.

So, I apologize for supposing you were a "Bushbot". Clearly, you aspire to more.

[downtowner97]

Iraq is said to have one hundred billion barrels of oil reserves. Iraq''s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. One hundred billion times $92 (The current cost of a barrel of oil)is roughly $1 trillion. We were told that oil would pay for the war, but so far, it has been current and future US taxpayers who have paid for/will pay for the war. Where''s the oil? How much is being pumped out of Iraq, and who is getting the money? The World Trade center was brought down by Saudis who had their flight lessons paid for by the wife of the Saudi ambassador''s wife. Why don''t the Saudis at least pay to rebuild the World Trade Center? These are the questions I ask as I drive past gas stations charging $3.60 for gas.

[downtowner97]

Cheney the prophet: I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we''d have had to hunt him down. And once we''d done that and we''d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we''d have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi''i government or a Kurdish government or Ba''athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it''s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
%u2014Cheney at the Washington Institute''s Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991

[downtowner97]

Clinton got involved in a civil war he did NOT start in Kosovo. We were responsible for the deaths of a great number of civilians, and the complete destruction of the Chinese embassy. All US personnel came home alive.

This is what George W Bush said about Kosovo on 4/9/99: %u201CVictory means exit strategy, and it%u2019s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.%u201D

This is what he said about his own war on 6/24/05: %u201CIt doesn%u2019t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you%u2019re %u2014 you%u2019re conceding too much to the enemy.%u201D

You don''t have to make things up about Bush. He damns himself with his own words.