Iraqi Sheik and Anbar Hero Offers to Take the Fight to Bin Laden
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 01:47AM This is the incredible story of Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi. Sheik Ahmad is the brother of Sheik Sattar, who led the Anbar Awakening and was assassinated last September, and the two brothers worked together to defeat al-Qaeda in Anbar Province. Sheik Ahmad now offers to lend his expertise to GEN Petraeus in Afghanistan and Pakistan when he becomes CENTCOM commander later this year. Those who say we have no allies in the Middle East and that Muslims are incapable of democracy and freedom are badly mistaken.
Read the WHOLE ARTICLE here…
Iraqi Sheik Offers To Take Fight to Bin Laden
Hero of Anbar Would Stir a Revolt in Afghanistan
The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq’s Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden’s organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: “I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it.”
The success of the Anbari tribal rebellion known as the awakening spurred Multinational Forces Iraq to try to emulate the model throughout Iraq, including with the predominately Shiite tribes in the south of the country. Today, the tribe-based militias formed to protect Anbaris from Al Qaeda are forming a political alliance poised to unseat the confessional Sunni parties currently in parliament in the provincial elections scheduled for the fall and the federal ones scheduled for 2009.
During his nomination hearing for taking over the regional military post known as Central Command, General David Petraeus said one of the first things he would do would be to travel to Pakistan to discuss the current strategy of the government in dealing with Al Qaeda’s safe haven in the Pashtun border provinces. A possible strategy for defeating Al Qaeda would be an effort there along the lines of the Anbar awakening to win over the tribes that offer Osama bin Laden’s group protection and safe haven.
“Al Qaeda is an ideology,” Sheik Ahmad said. “We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country.” The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq’s elected government.
Of his meeting with Mr. Bush, Sheik Ahmad said he was impressed. “He is a brave man. He is also a wise man. He is taking care of the country’s future, the United States’ future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq.”
When Sheik Ahmad’s brother, Sheik Sattar, met with Mr. Bush in Anbar last fall, he told the president that he dedicated his victory over Al Qaeda to the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On September 13, 2007, Sheik Sattar was assassinated by an improvised explosive device. Since then, his brother Sheik Ahmad has led the awakening movement.
Sheik Ahmad said he wanted Hollywood to make a movie about the life story of his brother, who was so revered after his murder that Iraq’s interior minister dedicated a statue to him on the road from Baghdad to Anbar.
In Washington, Sheik Ahmad also met with some members of Congress. He said he told them that American soldiers should stay in Iraq for at least as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq’s national army. The Democratic majority in Congress has tried and failed to mandate deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground.
“We have to rebuild a national Iraqi army, not built on sects, but the same way they built up the Anbar police,” he said. “They must be well-armed, so they will be able to protect the country and all the American interests in the area. We also have to make a friendship treaty based on mutual respect between the two parties, and then the United States will be able to withdraw from Iraq, if they wish, and we will succeed in Iraq the same way America succeeded in Japan and Germany.”
The Anbari sheik offered no comment on the details of the current negotiations on the American troop presence in Iraq between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, saying he was not involved in the negotiations. But he also said he favored such a status-of-forces agreement. “With a diplomatic understanding we will be able to solve all the problems. We fully trust the Americans. We know the United States never in its history occupied a country. On the contrary, they were occupied and they were able to fight the occupier,” he said, referring to the American rebellion against the British in 1776.
Interestingly, my husband the COIN expert has been saying for some time he’d love to see a Hollywood movie about the Anbar Awakening and how the sheik and his brother helped win it back from al-Qaeda. It is heroic stuff.
Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi’s story is yet another significant brick on the road to stability and proof that 1) Muslims aren’t bad, terrorists are and 2) it is Muslims who will ultimately win this war and change the face of the Middle East for the better.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1922782
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (36)
Its weird still seeing the name al-Rishawi in the news these days.
Remember that when al-Zarqawi was killed the media buzz was that it wouldnt harm Al Qaeda, but not long after the Anbar Salvation Council was formed.
Then when Sheik Sattar al-Rishawi was killed the buzz was that the Council was in trouble.
The bias is plain to see now that the Council is at its height of power while al-Qaeda suffers defeat after defeat.
This is good news, Amy. Thanks! We certainly need all the good news we can get.
Agreed terrorists are bad. This doesn't prove Muslims are good or even "not bad". It proves this Muslim is good and that Muslims can be good. The sheik has a personal grudge against Osama and may not be all that altruistic in his actions. It also does nothing to rehabilitate the evil that is Islam.
He does have a great story, though, and it should be made into a movie. I do believe he would be an excellent choice to hunt and neutralize bin Laden.
Our best ally against Bin Laden and his ideology are the Muslim people.
Great comments robert, Freedom and Gayle.
Indigo Red, the sheik's grudge against Osama is the same we have: he is a terrorist. The fact is that in all religions, there are only a small fraction that are very devout and represent their religion well. This is true in Christianity as well as we saw so-called Christians supporting both Obama and Clinton during the primaries. Abortion is a completely incompatible position for the Christian but do we call Christians who point his out, "disgruntled" or "orthodox"? Usually they're called "Holier than Thou".
People don't take the kind of risks these sheiks have make over a grudge. It is becausee of their faith and character.
Red,
Iraqi Kurdistan is our ally.
The Sunni Awakening is our ally.
Iraq’s Shia-led government is our ally.
They are all Muslims and we need each other.
Remember our Vietnamese allies over 30 years ago…
…NEVER AGAIN!!!
BIN LADEN! ,,,, ? Oh yes .... that guy on the wanted dead or alive poster .... 5
... YEARS AGO
I wonder what the symbolic meaning is for Muslims, that Bin Laden staying at large for 5 years. Does it suggest you can hurt the US and 'get away with it'.
I wonder what kinda meaning Arabs would take from the fact that the US got Saddam, who didn't attack them, and couldn't get Bin Laden, who did attack the US.
Snerd
Amy: "... so-called Christians supporting both Obama and Clinton during the primaries."
SG: It appears for 'Old Testament Ch(R)istians', God is a (R) ... A (R)ew(R)itng of THE CHOOSEN PEOPLE part of the Bible, I guess.
For Indigo,it appears God is having a devil of a time with Muslims. Must be part of his LOVING Plan. Some L-O-V-I-N-G God!
Snerd
Don't worry, SG, we'll take out bin Laden like we took out Hilter..no, wait, he did that himself. Or Moussilini...no, never mind.
Is that all you have? The "bin Laden still at large" argument? That shows a thorough lack of understanding the bigger picture and elements like terrain, geography, policy, etc. Hey, wait, aren't you against Gitmo? Where exactly should we keep bin Laden? Maybe we should make him an honorary citizen and give him a driver's license and honorary citzenship.
I'm wondering what your theology credentials are in Christianity, SG. Really, I need not say anything further than that.
Amy: "... Is that all you have? The "bin Laden still at large" argument?
SG: Well it was you who brought the subject up, with another ... We (R) turning the corner 'sto(R)ies'. I merely counter-posed a factual, to your hypothetical.
Amy: "... That shows a thorough lack of understanding the bigger picture and elements like terrain, geography, policy, etc."
SG: Not entirely. On the Policy issue; I, like the rest of the 'rational' world, have understood since the beginning of the idea of the diversionary Iraqi misadventure (a quagmire as defined by Dick Cheney at the time of the first Gulf War and based on propaganda, as Scotty now acknowledges), would distract 'US' from getting Bin Laden. Surprise surprise, that's what happened. This Bush policy is precisely why Bin Laden is still at large.
Now with Iraq not likely to succeed (in spite of "W'z" protection racket i.e. paying enemies not attacked - really, this is unsustainable, but "W" is just kickin' the can down the road for the next president... ),and with Iraqi's rejecting American occupation through the new Security Agreement, "W" is lookin' for a trophy ... Sumthin' other than Katrina, the Economy, USA prestige, failed nation building, scandal after scandal, failed Middle East policy, torture ... err ... I mean 'enhanced interrogation', f(R)ee speech zones, shredding the Constitution, etc., .
It's not that he's worried about Bin Laden, 'cause he's already acknowledged he really doesn't worry about him, it's 'cause he's worried about his own legacy.
Anywayz, "W" won't talk to (R) enemies, but he will pay and arm them. Now there's a long term solution, Eh!?. Maybe "W" could pay and arm Bin Laden and extend the success of his 'su(R)ge'.....
Snerd .
Amy: "... I'm wondering what your theology credentials are in Christianity, SG. Really, I need not say anything further than that."
SG: My credentials are right where they should be, between me and my God.
By the way, I thought liberals were un-Godly because they didn't hate the poor, Gayz and Muslims ... Now I'm lurnin' it's just the abortion issue.
Personally, I am adverse to abortion, but I think pregnant women should practice Abortion Abstinence. Women generally, should just Say No to birth control.
See God gave us a Mind to resist our bodily urges. However when that fails, and we give into our bodily urges, we shouldn't use our Mind to protect us from the consequences. Instead we should just go all-in with our bodily urges .... 'neat'-like
Snerd
Do you think Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi knows he headed for a life in eternal Hell according to your theology? You think he knows his theocratic masters are laughing behind his back?
Amy,
Unfortunately some of your fellow bloggers seem intent on perpetuating their own solopsistic worldview on this blog and do not seem inclined at all to the realities on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Freedom Now and Robert Verdi have it nailed: our allies in the GWOT are Muslims who want to exist side by side with the west while pursuing their own cultural values.
To put all this in context, Barack Obama sat for 20 years listening to a James Cone-inspired liberation theology message which informs his vision of "change". Liberation theology syncretizes a bizarre concoction of Jesus and Karl Marx. It advocates any methodology at hand (to include violent revolution - SEE: Che Guevarra) to achieve "justice" for the oppressed. It is tantamount to the methodology of UBL and AQ. So in a very real sense, Obama is the apostle of James Cone and the liberation theologians. If that theology advocates revolution (to include violent coups such as Guevarra's), does that implicate all Christians?
If someone distorts Christianity by placing Christian symbols over the Marxist template, does that mean that Christians are revolutionaries? Likewise, if UBL applies terrorist tactics to a puritanical vision of Islam, does that mean all Muslims are terrorists?
grumpy, do you realize whatever our theology, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi believes the same about us?
We aren't God. We haven't the right to accurse people, only look at their lives and judge their "fruit", whether good or bad.
snerd,
the creation of a democratic Shia state about 300 miles north of Mecca and Medina was hardly on Bin Laden's to do list.
Grump,
Why do you dislike this particular Iraqi?
Snerd, God also gave us a conscience. That kinda complicates your formula, doesn't it?
Iraq is not likely to succeed?? According to who? Obama will give defeat his damnest if he is President, but not according to people who have been to Iraq lately.
Your comments are uneducated and ignorant. I'm not going to waste my time responding.
"Grump,
Why do you dislike this particular Iraqi?"
Who said I did?
robert, grumpy dislikes all religious people, not just the sheik. Grumpy is an admitted homosexual atheist. Now there's a combo!
????????
Sorry to disappoint, Amy. Straight (but not narrow) here.
And I don't dislike all religious people. It depend the on the person.
You did get the atheist part right though.
Oh, and you folks are the ones who believe the Sheik will be burning in Hell for all eternity, not me.
Talk about not liking a guy! Funny dude, this Jesus.
Chapter and verse, grumpy, chapter and verse.
Imagine that! A messiah with moral absolutes! A multi-cultral messiah who allows people to drag God down through the gutter and break all the commandments, now that's a Messiah we can all believe in.
We cannot judge the sheik. He believes in the God of Abraham, as do the Jews and Christians.
I could have sworn you touted yourself as gay and an atheist. But on your word, I apologize for the error.
Grump,
"You think he knows his theocratic masters are laughing behind his back."
You consider this man a fool.
"We cannot judge the sheik."
But you do. You judge him fit for hell. You can't have it both ways.
As far as the gay thing, no offense taken Amy. I don't find gay people offensive. That's your bias, not mine. I was just correcting an inaccuracy.
As an atheist I don’t appreciate Christian teachings which dictate that you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior or go to Hell, but I really don’t see what the Hell that has to do with Amy’s views on the Sheik.
Amy’s religion states that I will go to Hell for my non-belief... That does not affect our cyber friendship at all.
A little over 80% of Americans are Christian. Should I hate them because of their religion? Is there any reason why we can’t get along because of our beliefs or non-belief? Your point is ignorant.
Freedom,
Did I say I hate anyone??? Did I say we can't get along???
You introduced this strawman argument in order to adopt a condescending tone towards Amy's favorable comments of the Sheik.
Saying... "You judge him fit for hell."
This is a cheap shot of the lowest order. Such an accusation dictates that Amy makes a hateful judgment when she does not.
Are you just trolling or do you have anything worthwhile to contribute?
Saying someone is going to burn in hell for all eternity for thinking the "wrong" way (and really meaning it) is not a hateful judgment??
Really?
Look, you and I may know this is all just superstitious B.S., but such fervently held and expressed beliefs lead to a lot of trouble in the real world. No?
Grumpy, this little game you're playing isn't working and I don't have time for it. I thought I already explained in elementary terms the theology behind judging. Never, ever did I indicate in any fashion that this sheik is fit for hell. Read Matthew 25 and let God judge.
If I were you, I'd be more concerned about my own eternal status than anyone else's. I say that with the most sincere concern.
You've also misinterpreted (what a shock) my stance on homosexuality. Everyone has biases, but this is about theological belief and we've been over at length the compassion the Church has for gays and their situations but you might want to try taking the log out of your own eye before taking the speck out of mine. Your bias against religion is crippling.
PS.. read the ROE. You are on the verge of being banished, grumpy.
DELETED
Grump,
Do you think the United States, Iraq, and the world in general is better with guys like this shooting at Al Qaeda types or not?
Rules of Engagement:
If grumpy's assertion were true that I believe the sheik is going to "burn in hell", a hell which he doesn't believe in, why would that mean I would oppose making peace with my adversaries? Why not? People within my own faith have differences of opinion about theology.
Why did you delete my non-abusive post? Obviously, it made a point for which you had no answer.
No "provocative comments about religion"? My goodness, that speaks volumes, doesn't it?.
Bottom Line, grumpy, is that I don't have to tolerate remarks that violate the ROE, which I posted above. Your comments did.
We are currently in South Korea, living out of hotels and I'm not letting those sorts of comments stand while I'm occupied with more important duties.
I would also point to the fact that Christianity doesn't need my defense to be the thriving body it is. It's success and growth through persecution speaks for itself.
Until another time..