April 29, 2007
AL QAEDA'S BIG PROBLEM...:
Iraqis reclaim Ramadi from insurgents: Residents turn against militants and cooperate with the U.S. after three years of oppression and killings of friends (Chris Kraul, April 29, 2007, LA Times)
They closed down Hissam Hamed's Internet cafe, told history professor Abid Mohammed how to pray, and killed 16-year-old Ammar Alwani because he scoffed at their religious edicts.Nearly everyone you talk to in Ramadi has a story about how life under the insurgents calling themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq progressively worsened over the three years they were in control here, finally pushing the residents of this Sunni Triangle city into the unlikely arms of the U.S. military.
When they arrived in the summer of 2003, the Islamic extremists found Ramadi fertile ground for recruits to fight the U.S. Marines and soldiers who had occupied the city after overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda in Iraq even declared an Islamic state of Iraq, with Ramadi its provisional capital.
But over time, the extremists overplayed their hand by imposing strict religious doctrine, hijacking the city government and enforcing a brutal intimidation campaign to keep the locals in line, residents said.
"They killed people right in front of our eyes," said Sameh Khalif, an apparel merchant on Market Street, referring to insurgents from foreign countries, including Syria, Algeria and Morocco, who flocked to Ramadi.
U.S. Army Lt. Col. Mike Silverman, who commands a unit in charge of northwest Ramadi, permits himself the hope that a corner has been turned here in Al Anbar province, thanks in large part to Al Qaeda in Iraq's missteps.
"They nearly achieved it, turning Al Anbar into the new Afghanistan," Silverman said. "But they shot themselves in the foot. Their violent tactics just discredited them further and further." [...]
The militants also targeted Ramadi's educators, killing several schoolteachers as well as 10 professors at Al Anbar University who refused to teach Sharia, or Islamic law, said Arab history professor Abid Mohammed. As a result, Ramadi's school system was closed for months because students and teachers were terrified that Al Qaeda would raid classes.
But schools in most of the city have been open since September, officials say, and Mohammed is running a special literacy school for security force recruits working out of the new police station in the Faraj neighborhood.
Young entrepreneur and Internet cafe operator Hamed said Al Qaeda in Iraq threatened to blow up his shop unless he shut down his two computers. "They ruined my income," Hamed said. "Then suddenly the Iraqi police were here and security has improved, and so I've reopened. Of course I support the security forces here."
That support has been evidenced by a surge in police and army recruits, a downturn in attacks on U.S. forces and a rise in weapons cache recoveries, a cycle fed by improved security. Most insurgents were flushed from Ramadi in 10 U.S.-led military operations between January and mid-April. In its wake, the military left a score of police stations manned by the fresh recruits.
"I couldn't have joined a year ago. I would have been beheaded," said police recruit Nasser Ibrahim Hussein, 20, as he stood guard at Ramadi General Hospital.
...they can't control any territory anywhere for any significant period of time. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 29, 2007 8:48 AM
And this fanaticism differs from the UIC in Somalia exactly how?
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 29, 2007 6:21 PMThe Courts weren't slaughtering people and restored order where it didn't exist any longer. That's why they were popular. They were the ones who'd open schools.
Posted by: oj at April 29, 2007 8:56 PMFrom what I have read, people weren't being 'slaughtered' in Mogadishu, but lots of killing was done in other towns, particularly in the south (which did not suffer the same disorder as the capital).
In early 1996, the Taliban were 'popular', too (but not everywhere). They opened schools, too - but not for everyone.
The UIC is Wahhabist, aren't they? Why back them?
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 29, 2007 10:48 PMYes, we welcomed the Taliban because they restored order. Had they not played footsie with Osama they'd still be in power and evolving normally.
Posted by: oj at April 29, 2007 11:58 PMEvolving into what? Longer-bearded murderers?
Or perhaps they would have just begun to read Mill and Jefferson. Or Sartre, for that matter.
Masood was on their doorstep, and the Iranians hated them. While the ISS would have propped them up, the Taliban wouldn't have lasted. They are punks, not leaders. Their only hope was to take power in Pakistan, which would have provoked a nuclear exchange with India. At which point, the Taliban would have made Pakistan a glowing memory.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 30, 2007 7:25 AMConservative liberals. The End of History won't be skipping the Sunni.
Posted by: oj at April 30, 2007 9:25 AM