Redstate

Posted at 5:08pm on Sep. 11, 2007 "Are we Arming the Sunnis?"

And if so, does it really matter?

By Jeff Emanuel

This appeared on NRO's The Corner a few days ago and, as my clarifying email to Jonah wasn't posted (though his friend's inaccurate information was), I figured I'd get it up here, as it's an important topic. So, please bear with the blockquote from the Corner to get to the response below the fold.

I keep hearing people say we're "arming the Sunnis" in dire terms — the implication being that we're destined for blowback once the Sunni tribes kick out al Qaeda in Iraq. There are responses to the concern, but it strikes me as a legitimate and serious objection worth discussing — if it's true. But the thing is last week on Meet the Press, the NYT's Michael Gordon — whose spent lots of time in Sunni areas — said it's simply not true. The relevant quote:

MR. RUSSERT: If we, in fact, are arming the Sunnis and we've already armed the Shiites, are we arming both factions in a civil war?

MR. GORDON: Well, we're not arming these groups. They're not being given arms by the Americans, but you're pointing to one of the very real risks. I mean, the potential here is by organizing these Sunni groups in Baquba and...(unintelligible)...and...(unintelligible)...and all sorts of places in Iraq, we do have a mechanism to provide local security and really to drive out al-Qaeda of Iraq. The downside is unless this becomes institutionalized and these people become either Iraqi police or somehow approved by the Iraqi government, we might be setting the stage for more intensified civil war.

Since then, I've read lots of blanket assertions that we are arming the Sunnis. The latest issue of Time (via Nexis, so no link) has a long cover story by Michael Duffy et al. advancing the "blowback" concern, which reads in part:

Read on . . .

Posted in embedded reporting | NRO | War — Comments (3)/ Email this page » / Read More »