Political Counterinsurgency

Update: According to FOX News today, al-Dulaimi has been moved to a hotel in the green zone, and the IAF has halted their boycott in parliament as a result. Turns out the whole "house arrest" thing really was a misunderstanding.

Under normal circumstances I'd take the weekend off, but according to Al Jazeera, the IAF has walked out of Parliament to protest the detention of it's leader, Adnan al-Dulaimi.

A FOX news report explains the situation with al-Dulaimi:

"Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, said Maki Adnan al-Dulaimi, the senior lawmaker's son, was arrested after a gunman fleeing U.S. and Iraqi troops sought refuge in his father's office Thursday night.

Al-Moussawi said two car bombs were discovered at the al-Dulaimi's office compound.

The U.S. military statement said one vehicle rigged as a suicide car bomb was found on the street outside the compound, and one of al-Dulaimi's security guards had the keys."

This wouldn't be the first time that al-Dulaimi and his ilk have been alleged to be supporting militant activity, if that's what the ongoing investigations come down to. Back in April, al-Dulaimi and his sons were charged with ordering executions and forced ethnic deportations - Iraqi Mojo has the story on that one.

Of course al-Dulaimi won't be held beyond the investigation unless some serious evidence arises. The concern here is that it seems fairly likely that some evidence of al-Dulaimi's continued support of militants will surface, and if it does, then we have a counterinsurgency dilemma.

On the one hand, the Iraqis could prosecute al-Dulaimi, further anger the IAF, and in all likelihood provoke whichever militant group he's been sponsoring. But the rule of law will have been upheld. Alternatively, we could let this slide, deal with the intensity of his insurgents at whatever level they're at now, and keep the IAF happy and at work. But then the rule of law goes out the window.

What weight the rule of law really has, though, seems to be a matter of interpretation to many Iraqis. The Sadrists have walked out of parliament citing constitutional breaches before, but one would think that a man with a private army wouldn't particularly mind breaking the law.

Iraq is a rough country. There is no political party that isn't backed in some capacity by a militia - the Sadrists come readily to mind. The trick to controlling those militias is controlling the political cadre that heads them, not hunting every last one of the gun-toting loonies down and killing them (tempting as it may be). That means keeping them at the table cutting deals even when they're corrupt until we have solutions that we can employ to remove the militias from the equations.

For that to occur, contrary to popular belief, the political cadres don't need to get behind the idea of one free Iraq. They don't have to abandon sectarianism. They don't even have to intend to cooperate. They just have to see no other option. To get to that point, we know exactly what we need to do: build legitimacy, decrease violence. So this, as with all things in Iraq, is a work in progress.