Douglas Hanson over at the American Thinker [1], this morning, raises some questions about a story I blogged about the other day [2]:
Yesterday, AT relayed a report from AdnKronos International that Saddam’s former deputy and current leader of the banned Baath Party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to quit Al-Qaeda and to join forces with Iraqi forces and the Coalition. A former top Baath official, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat that al-Douri wanted to deal directly with US forces in Iraq.
This would certainly be a major breakthrough in bringing peace and stability to the country. In fact, it would be such a huge deal that one would think press releases would immediately issued on the MNF-I , CENTCOM, or DoD websites; but there are no news items even hinting at this possibility. Also, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen conflicting reports about al-Douri’s whereabouts and his possible death. A $10 million reward will do that to people. For example, in September of 2004, a man was arrested in Tikrit who Iraqis said was al-Douri, but DNA testing showed they captured the wrong guy.
The real problem with this report is that the US would even consider talking with this killer. We have in the past violated our own policy of not negotiating with Sunni Baathists who had “blood on their hands,” but cutting a deal with al-Douri is a real stretch.
Perhaps. However there is a larger issue at stake than merely one criminal. And I would certainly be interested in dealing with someone over there who didn’t have blood on their hands, and yet have a sufficient following to make major changes over there. I don’t think such person exists. More importantly, nor do they.
As for Hanson’s mistrust of the situation, I share it to some degree. However, there’s far too much about it that rings true. We have seen over the past month or two, a large number of individuals stepping forward within Iraq, ready to stand up against and fight against “al-Qaida in Iraq”. (AQI) (Looks like a stock symbol, doesn’t it?) This change, as Ed suggests, [3]is because of…
…the performance of Petraeus and his work in Anbar and Diyala. The surge came as Sunnis had tired of AQI’s brutal imposition of Taliban-like rule, and the renewed American effort has given the tribes a reason to unite and to work with the Baghdad government.
al-Douri, If I read the signs correctly, considers himself in serious danger, given these change of events. he’s trying to come out of this with his skin more or less intact. He figures he has a better chance of doing that, by striking a deal than he does fighting alongside AQI.
There are no clear-cut “nice” answers to the problem presented us by Iraq. We knew that going in, years back. We’re not going to be able to solve these problems by sticking to the rule book. the circumstances have provided as a choice between dealing with AQI, or al-Douri, who at least ostensibly would be willing to work with Baghdad.
The choice seems a no brainer, or is close to one as you’re going to get in that part of the world.