Iraqi Neighborhood Militias - is this a good or bad development?

Link

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis have begun barricading themselves in their homes and forming neighborhood militias in an effort to fend off relentless suicide attacks, residents in the capital said on Monday.

The measures come amid waning confidence in the Iraqi police and other security forces as they struggle to get on top of the two-year-old insurgency. In the latest attack, 98 people were killed by a suicide truck bomb south of Baghdad on Saturday.

A senior member of Iraq's parliament on Sunday called for popular militias to be created as an extra line of defense against the militants, and criticized the government for failing to stop the bombs.

"The plans of the interior and defense ministries to impose security in Iraq have failed," Khudair al-Khuzai told parliament during a heated session following the latest blast. "We need to bring back popular militias," he said, without expanding.

While there was some backing for his proposal, there are concerns militias formed along sectarian lines could lead the country ever closer to civil war, with Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs already involved in tit-for-tat killings.

Despite that fear, local militias have already been formed in several Baghdad areas, and at least two Shi'ite political movements have their own powerful private armies.

In the Sadiya district in the south of the capital, residents have introduced a neighborhood watch program which involves men armed with pistols and AK-47s walking the streets from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. on alert for attackers.

They carry a piece of paper signed by the Iraqi army granting them permission to carry out the patrols.

In several other districts residents have blocked off streets with the trunks of chopped-down palm trees, or with large concrete flower pots, to try to stop suicide car bombers.

BOMB BARRICADES

"It's better to have our own militias because we can recognize every stranger who comes into our neighborhood and the police can't," said Sattar Hashim in New Baghdad, a district where a bomb blast last week killed nearly two dozen children.

Hashim said local men guarding the area at the funerals of those killed in the blast detained a Libyan man strapped with explosives who was aiming to attack the ceremonies.

Neighbors supported the informal security.

"When they blocked this road, less people came to my shop and sales went down, but I don't mind as long as we're all safer," said Sheikh Mohammed, the owner of a herbal pharmacy on a street blocked off by water pipes, gates and palm tree trunks.

In Aadhamiya and Karrada, two other Baghdad districts, shopkeepers and homeowners have boarded up or put thick tape on the insides of windows to prevent blasts splintering the glass. Others have fortified their doorways to foil kidnappers.

"We are scared even inside our homes -- we expect attacks at any moment," said Hamid Hashim, a teacher in Aadhamiya who has padlocks on his doors. "Our children are never allowed out of the house, even if that may hurt them psychologically."

Shi'ite lawmakers are growing increasingly frustrated and fear militants will succeed in their aim of provoking sectarian conflict if greater efforts are not made to quell the insurgency.

"The multinational forces have to take responsibility for the bloodshed," said Sheikh Jalal-el-din al-Sagheer, a member of the main Shi'ite bloc in parliament.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the surface, I can't blame them. They have to be feeling desparate at this point...after this weekend, they must feel that the Iraqi and US forces are basically ineffective.

But...more groups with more guns and more individual agendas, all operating independently...scary.

[MountainHawk]

As long as they are shooting at suicide bombers and insurgents = good.

If they start shooting at each other, US, or Iraqi troops = bad.

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

As long as they are shooting at suicide bombers and insurgents = good.

If we have the general population walking around with guns, how do you tell the insurgents apart from everybody else?

If they start shooting at each other, US, or Iraqi troops = bad.

with Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs already involved in tit-for-tat killings.

Who are the insurgents again? The Sunnis?

[MountainHawk]

Originally Posted by Titania

If we have the general population walking around with guns, how do you tell the insurgents apart from everybody else?

If they shoot at people in uniforms, they just might be insurgents.

Who are the insurgents again? The Sunnis?

The ones blowing things up in civilian areas. Sorry, it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to make it out to be.

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

Sorry, it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to make it out to be.

Funny...that was my exact criticism of your analysis, which is why the idea of 100 different armed groups is freaking me out.

This guy's criteria is "a stranger":

"It's better to have our own militias because we can recognize every stranger who comes into our neighborhood and the police can't," said Sattar Hashim in New Baghdad, a district where a bomb blast last week killed nearly two dozen children.

[MountainHawk]

Originally Posted by Titania

Funny...that was my exact criticism of your analysis, which is why the idea of 100 different armed groups is freaking me out.

This guy's criteria is "a stranger":

That guy is probably more in tune with who the insurgency is than any US soldier.

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

That guy is probably more in tune with who the insurgency is than any US soldier.

I totally agree.

Assuming his (and all the other militia's) only goal is to defeat the insurgency and protect his family, I think it's a fine idea.

[MountainHawk]

Originally Posted by Titania

I totally agree.

Assuming his (and all the other militia's) only goal is to defeat the insurgency and protect his family, I think it's a fine idea.

An armed citizenry is necessary for a free society ... just ask any of the US Founding Fathers. Think of Iraq as the US in 1776, and the US playing the role of France (that thought ought to make some people squirm ). Maybe that'll help.

Originally Posted by MountainHawk

An armed citizenry is necessary for a free society ... just ask any of the US Founding Fathers. Think of Iraq as the US in 1776, and the US playing the role of France (that thought ought to make some people squirm ). Maybe that'll help.

Well, there's a difference...for the most part, the US in 1776 was pretty much united even beyond it's hatred of the English...yeah, there were different states and all, but Massachusetts didn't have a millenia-old history of wanting to obliterate Pennsylvania.

For the most part, the people with the guns were all the same faith, ethnic background, etc.

[MountainHawk]

Originally Posted by Titania

Well, there's a difference...for the most part, the US in 1776 was pretty much united even beyond it's hatred of the English...yeah, there were different states and all, but Massachusetts didn't have a millenia-old history of wanting to obliterate Pennsylvania.

For the most part, the people with the guns were all the same faith, ethnic background, etc.

It's really too bad. Maybe we could have obliterated Georgia back then, and it wouldn't have had enough staying power to come back like it did after Sherman burnt it to the ground.