AJ: Ibrahim Shammari (Islamic Army of Iraq)

Al-Jazeera just aired a half-hour interview with Ibrahim al-Shammari, spokesman of the Islamic Army of Iraq (which is one of the largest of the "nationalist-jihadist" Sunni insurgency factions).  I'd been seeing discussions about the interview in the Iraqi-oriented forums for a couple of days before it aired, suggesting considerable interest in what the IAI would have to say about the Crocker-Petraeus report.  I'm not sure when it was recorded, but no mention was made of the murder of Sattar Abu Risha, so if I had to guess I'd say it was done September 12- after the Congressional hearings but before the assassination.   I didn't notice any particular innovations in his discourse, but it's worth pointing out his major arguments and themes.

Ibrahim al-Shammari, screen capture from al-Jazeera. 

In response to a question about the Petraeus report and the role of the surge in Anbar, Shammari replied that the Islamic Army of Iraq saw nothing new in the report.  It claims to see progress in the tribal areas, but, he said, the American forces haven't done anything in those areas.  What happened in Anbar is the al-Qaeda Organization turned itself into a state, and terrorized anyone who had a different opinion, and this caused great unhappiness among the tribes and the factions who turned against it.  Then the US intervened and tried to exploit the differences, spreading money around and trying to buy support, but the troops they sent didn't accomplish anything.  This narrative actually doesn't deeply conflict with the Petraeus narrative about what happened last year in the Sunni areas, but of course diverges sharply when you get to the end about the significance of the US role and the nature of Sunni cooperation.  He didn't seem particularly concerned about the Anbar Salvation Council or its counterparts elsewhere, treating them as perfectly compatible with the resistance's agenda and a response to al-Qaeda's transgressions but not a threat to the role of the factions.

The interviewer interrupted to say that the operations against the Americans did go down, a claim which Shammari rejected.  Attacks against American forces have not gone down, he said, operations against the Americans continue ever day (he claimed over 50 a day for the IAI alone).   Shammari acknowledged that some "sons of the tribes" were cooperating with the Americans, but insisted that the cooperation was strictly limited to self-defense and to fighting against al-Qaeda - nothing more, nothing less.  The street remains with the resistance, he claimed, and it was absurd to try to distinguish between the resistance and the tribes.  When pressed on the nature of Sunni-American cooperation, he responded by harping on the levels of US-Shia cooperation through the Iraqi state, and military and police forces.

Shammari talked a lot about the Sunni-Shia conflict, trying to draw a sharp distinction between the Shia - with whom there could be no conflict since at the societal level there were no differences - and the Iranian-backed Shia forces.   The two problems facing Iraq, he said, are Iran and the occupation, and in the absence of the occupation the Shia would turn back to their natural affinity with other Iraqi Arabs rather than to Iran.  Iraq is not a sectarian (ta'ifi) society, he argued, and it was only the occupation which had sowed the seeds of sectarianism (which led to a lengthy argument over Iraqi history).  He insisted that the IAI and other factions were Sunni, but fought in defense of all Iraqis whether Sunni or Shia - liberation from occupation was the goal of all, he claimed.   He rejected  the suggestion that Sadr's Mahdi Army might be a partner in this fight, however, claiming that the Mahdi Army's only problems with the occupation were over Iran and not over liberating Iraq. 

On al-Qaeda, Shammari took a rather calmer tone than in past IAI statements (forum discussions had suggested that he was going to be far more aggressive, so it's interesting that he wasn't).   He acknowledged that the IAI had worked with al-Qaeda in the past -  back then all the factions cooperated against the occupation, he said.  But then al-Qaeda changed, he said, and began pursuing a private secret agenda which nobody could understand.   He called for all factions to come back to a clear agenda of national liberation.   In a line singled out already in the forums, he rejected insults to al-Qaeda, instead calling for it to come back to the shared agenda of the resistance.   At the same time, as befits the "nationalist" in "nationalist-jihadist", Shammari stressed the Iraqi national interest and put the jihad in service of national liberation - which has for almost a year been the argument at the core of the doctrinal arguments between the IAI allies and the al-Qaeda allies. 

Finally, he repeated the IAI's frequently articulated position of refusing to negotiate or sit with the Americans until there was a clear and binding commitment to withdrawal - at which point, the IAI would naturally be willing to talk to the Americans about the terms of the withdrawal.   He said that there was no  political process in Iraq to join right now, anyway. It had come to its end, collapsing on itself, and everyone was looking past the failed institutions.   He decried all plans for federalism and partition as an American long-term agenda to weaken and divide Iraq, and went on at some length appealing for a united Iraq.  He looked forward to an Iraq ruled by all the nationalist-jihadist factions, which would seem to suggest an expansive rather than limited agenda on their part.

No particular further comment here, just wanted to pass on info about a fairly important intervention in the Iraqi Sunni political field.  I'll update if/when I see interesting discussion of it.   One point I did want to make, though:  you'll notice that Shammari in the screen capture above is still veiled in shadows to protect his identity.  If these insurgency factions ever expect to advance an effective public political agenda, they are going to have to start putting forth some spokesmen who are not veiled in shadows.

UPDATE:  just heard through a source that Shammari's interview was recorded in Qatar, not in Amman as I had assumed - and not in Damascus, as others might have assumed.  If my source is right, that raises some very interesting questions about the relationship between the "nationalist-jihadist" factions and various regional governments - especially, given that Shammari complained in the interview that the Sunni Arab governments were not adequately supporting the resistance.

Comments

[Peter Principle]

Shammari stressed the Iraqi national interest and put the jihad in service of national liberation - which has for almost a year been the argument at the core of the doctrinal arguments between the IAI allies and the al-Qaeda allies.

In other words, permanent revolution versus "building Islamism in one country."

History may not repeat but it sure does rhyme.

[Andrew R.]

Here's a question, Marc. I've noticed at least in English-language sources that Sunni Iraqis, and especially Ba'athists (like the Riverbend blogger) tend to say things like, "Under Saddam, Iraqis didn't care about sectarian differences." Now given what the Iraqi Army did to Najaf, Karbala, and Basra in 1991, it seems to me that Shi'ite Iraqis don't necessarily share this opinion.

What are the Shi'a saying in the Arabic sources about the whole issue of whether or not Iraqis were all one under Saddam?

[mike m]

http://homepage.mac.com/jamesmadrid/bush-mohammad.mp4

[ckrantz]

Off topic but I was wondering if you had any information on the re-apperance of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi in the media again.

The SITE institute seems to have the tape but there has been no public comment from US or Iraqi officials which is interesting since the US military declared him a front figure played by an actor in july.

[bb]

Andrew R - that's a very interesting question which I think have asked Marc before. Are there any shiite websites, or anybody in the west blogging from the Shiite perspective except Talisman Gate?

[Abdurahman]

@ andrew,

I think it's pushing a little to say that riverbend blogger is baathist. Saddam was a dictator but people around him and in the baath party were both Shia and Sunna. Many Shia say that Saddam was fair in his brutality. It was obvious for a dictator like Saddam to deal brutally with the Shia uprising, and it would have been the same if it was Sunna.By the way, the Baath party in Syria was Hafiz al Asad who was Alawi (a sub-sect of Shia).

[Zathras]

Following Andrew's question, I'd be interested to here someone explain the difference between "nationalist" in the phrase nationalist-jihadist, and "Baathist."

Is there a difference? Do Iraqi Shiites think there is one?

[aardvark]

The "Baathist question" is a hot one in intra-Sunni politics, not just in Sunni-Shia politics - with some groups going out of their way to avoid the symbols of the old regime and others clearly identified with it (you saw this in the skirmishes over the attempted political meeting in Damascus, for instance). The "nationalist-jihadist" factions don't call themselves Baathists, for what that's worth. Whether Shia buy the distinction is an excellent question - I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect that (a) most don't; but (b) it varies by social class, political alignment, etc. It's true that the Sunnis were privileged and that many atrocities were committed against the Shia qua Shia (especially 1991 and aftermath), but it's also true that there were a significant number of Shia in the Baath party and in the Iraqi military under Saddam. But a lot has happened since 2003, and sectarian identities have hardened and historical narratives revised in line with current conflicts.

bb - I don't know of English language websites offering a stream of Shia-oriented news. Reidar Vissar's site gives commentary on Shia politics, and Nibras Kazimi reflects a kind of Shia political line if not a religious one. I follow Nahrain.net for news in Arabic from a Shia perspective, which I see as kind of comparable to the al-Haq site which gives Sunni-slanted news; I don't know if Nahrain gives English versions of some stories the way al-Haq does.

[Klaus]

Ayad (not Ali) Allawi on sectarianism in Iraq pre-invasion: The public airing of community grievances had previously been taboo. Any mention of them, or any suggestion that the state was institutionally biased against certain communities, was drowned in a sea of vituperative condemnation, and was equated with treasonous talk that aimed at undermining national unity. [...] The denial of sectarianism was so potent and deep-rooted that it pushed discussion of this problem to the outer limits of acceptable dialogue. In time, this denial created its own reality, and became an article of faith...

Fair to say the nationalists continue that tradition.