Spencer Ackerman, one of the internet's trusted sources of real talk on Iraq, today promotes a great new way of terming ongoing relationships with the former insurgents-turned-allies of the Anbar Awakening that correctly captures the toxic bargain that festers beneath all the happy "Surge" talk.
In the first place, you should know that the retail price for pretending to support the United States has just gone up:
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.
And hey, just to remind you, that "more money" is going to come from you and me! I don't know what they call this arrangement over at the Project For a New American Century, but in my neighborhood, the word we use is "extortion."
But these are our critical partners in peace, right? Well, if the "soldier's eye view" that Ackerman shares courtesy of the blogger at Army of Dude is any indication, that concept is due for a re-think. And so, a new term: "Enemies With Benefits."
At the very least, you need to read all of this.
Unfortunately, we couldn't take out the trash that easily. We grudgingly worked with the 1920s as per our orders. We were moderately successful in tracking down al-Qaeda operatives (or possibly doing in-house cleaning) and caches. But the point isn't the success of turning over a new leaf with insurgents, though. We traded in our values, our self reliance to get things done, for $300 a head. We did not destroy our enemy but rather aided them. We secured not only their future success, but the future instability with the Iraqi government. Maliki and his Shia government adamantly oppose the Sunni groups and have said in the past that they will never become a permanent part of Iraqi forces.
But they don't pay the former insurgents, we do, as taxpayers. That's why they're trying to leverage the American military into giving them more money, the ol' "pay me more or I'm going back to killing you" ruse. And for their part, they'll probably be successful. Commanders know that they're important not for killing al-Qaeda, but for not fighting us. They're not allies, they're enemies with benefits. And they're holding the cards.
Why isn't there an outcry from the media and citizenry about these people? Quite simply, the military led the media by its nose when they characterized insurgents as "concerned" and proudly spoke of them as volunteers. To further confuse people, they were renamed 'Baqubah Guardians' and then finally 'Sons of Iraq,' each name a brighter shade of lipstick for the same dirty pig. They're only growing stronger and more experienced as time goes on, watching coalition forces close up, looking for every weakness. They've already discovered a big one: our over-reliance on their dirty, sectarian work.