According to al-Quds al-Arabi, Jaysh al-Islami has just released a message to internet forums calling on the Sunnis of Baghdad to wage a war of destiny against the Shia militias, a war of existence to decide whether they would exist or not exist. Jaysh al-Islami is one of the most important factions in the Sunni insurgency, and one on which some hopes have reportedly been pinned: it rejected al-Qaeda's declaration of an Islamic Iraqi State and as recently as last month was allegedly involved in talks with the United States. This comes on the heels of SCIRI leader Abd al-Aziz Hakim's warning to the Sunnis that they would lose in the event of a civil war (today, in Amman, the new American favorite (and Iranian pal) Hakim warned against civil war and against partition before heading out to Washington for talks with Bush next week). Talk of civil war is obviously nothing new, but Jaysh al-Islami's message feels like another slip down towards the brink. But don't worry - I'm sure everyone will wait another few months while Washington figures out what to do.
...UPDATE: Badger asks in comments about the absence of any mention of resisting the occupation in the al-Quds al-Arabi writeup, and wonders whether this might be a sign that the American outreach to the Sunni factions is paying off. Annoyingly, I haven't found an original full text to find out whether that omission was due to the al-Quds al-Arabi editors or the Jaysh al-Islami statement itself. What I did find, though, is a report posted today on Aswat Iraq (Voices of Iraq) and reproduced on a number of forums claiming that the Jaysh al-Islami has announced its joining up with the Iraqi Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Anbar province: "operations by the Jaysh al-Islami against the American occupying forces will be carried out under the name of the Iraqi Islamic State." Since it was one of the main insurgent factions criticizing the declaration back when it happened, that would be significant if true. It would also suggest a backing away from the American channel. But I'm not sure how much credibility to give that posting absent some other reporting on it...
Maybe SCIRI/Hakim not exactly a "new" American favorite.
With SCIRI they seem to feel a rapport, with other Shiite groups not so much. I recall this Khalilzad episode from Feb 06.
Posted by: Badger | December 01, 2006 at 01:53 PM
On another point, according to the brief account in Al-Quds al-Arabi, the IAI called for a fight against the Shiite militias and against "the aliens that are gaining strength in Baghdad and expelling you..." But it didn't mention anything about fighting against the occupation. Anybody know if this was completely absent from the announcement? If it represents a change in the IAI program? Couldn't be the first-fruits of the new US Sunni tilt, could it ?
Posted by: Badger | December 01, 2006 at 02:46 PM
Weird, isn't it? I've been hunting around looking for an original but haven't found one yet - obviously it would be important to see whether that's due to QA editors or the declaration itslef.
Posted by: aardvark | December 01, 2006 at 03:49 PM
thanks for the Aswat al-Iraq reference. I put the two announcements together, read up a bit on the traditional views of the IAI on their website, and came up with this as a likely version of what's going on.
Posted by: Badger | December 01, 2006 at 09:43 PM
well, Bush said he was "....a uniter, not a divider"
Posted by: jonst | December 02, 2006 at 10:51 AM
I just honestly do not understand the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis. I think that there are some differences in cultural traditions, religion, and conflicts in the past, but are these things that can be worked through and worked out? The situation in Iraq is so tragic because good people on all sides are being hurt. They cannot go on with their lives. I know an Arab man here in Texas who initially was glad to see Sadam removed from power (his father was a journalist who was murdered by Saddam). Now he has changed his mind and says that things are so terrible for all of his relatives that are still in Iraq. He even met with President Bush last year to express his opinion. In your own opinion, what would the best course of action for the US be at this point? What can or should be done to restore calm and peace in Iraq?
Posted by: lynne | December 02, 2006 at 03:08 PM
SCIRI being the Americans' favorites isn't "new". Remember the whole first four months of 2006.... (As chronicled on my blog and by Reidar Visser
Posted by: Helena Cobban | December 02, 2006 at 04:53 PM
... all I meant by "new" was the DC chatter the last couple of weeks about how Hakim would be a stronger leader and better bet than Maliki. Obviously there's a long history there..
Posted by: aardvark | December 02, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Abdel-Aziz Hakim has been summoned by Washington and will arrive tomorrow (Monday). But Islamic Party leader Tarek al-Hashemi has also been summoned and will arrive on the Potomac in January.
Instead of a peace conference, the Administration has, of course, opted for private agreements and strongmen.
Posted by: Nur al-Cubicle | December 03, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Regarding your update, could this be Jaysh al-Islami pushing back against America's renewed coziness with Hakim, who must be anathema to them?
Posted by: Antiquated Tory | December 05, 2006 at 06:08 AM