7 comments

• 

  paddler13

  1 year ago

  Whoa, notice that interesting little tidbit buried in the Colonel's comments?
  
  It's this one: "There are four major political groups in Baquba with [Sons of Iraq militias]: Saladin, the 1920s Revolution, the Mujahideen and Hamas of Iraq."
  
  HAMAS IN IRAQ???? Hello? Let's see, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a dangerous terrorist group that is part of the larger evil, vicious, international terrorist group Al Qaeda, and...Hamas of Iraq is what? A Cub Scout troop? We're funding HAMAS IN IRAQ?
  
  If you ask me that's the headline out of this story.
  reply
• 

  soldiernolongeriniraq

  1 year ago

  I'm sure he meant the Sunni Arab group "Hamas in Iraq" (sometimes translated as "Hamas of Iraq"), which fractured from the 1920s in 2007. They already had broken with AQI following a former working relationship in Ramadi.
  
  
  
  Eventually, it gained enough 1920s refugees that it pretty much took over a large part of the franchise. Last month, leaders of Hamas in Iraq made headlines when they accused Iran of funding AQIZ, not various Sunni Arab rackets.
  
  
  
  Their ultimate loyalty to the US is very much in doubt, but for the moment they are enamored with fighting AQIZ and Iran, parties which Hamas in Iraq leaders believe are one and the same.
  reply
• 

  paddler13

  1 year ago

  I understand your point but my reference was more to the larger issue of conflating AQ in Iraq with bin Laden's AQ, an absurdity since AQI wasn't created until we invaded and not created by ABL, and using them as "proof" that we are "fighting terrorists" but completely ignoring the same apparent connection (which also may or may not be valid, that isn't really the point though) between Hamas and Hamas of Iraq. The connection is convenient in terms of AQ so it is made but inconvenient in terms of Hamas so it is ignored.
  
  Of course their loyalty is in doubt, everybody's loyalty in Iraq is in doubt, even ours (in terms of loyalty to groups within Iraq).
  reply
• 

  soldiernolongeriniraq

  1 year ago

  Actually, much of the seed corn that planted AQIZ in Iraq came from Ansar al-Islam, a mix of salafi Kurds and foreign fighters arriving in the no-man's land between Kurdistan and Baathist Iraq in 2001-02, after the fall of Talibi Afghanistan.
  
  
  
  It's always bothered me when I hear that "al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we got there," because confederates of far-enemy al Qaeda sure were, and they were reconstituted as AQIZ under the leadership of Jordan's al-Zarqawi in a rebranding experiment sponsored by formal, hierarchical, bin Laden al Qaeda.
  
  
  
  Also, don't put too much into "HAMAS" as if it is solely a reference to the HAMAS in Gaza. It's an acronym (loosely, it means Islamic Resistance Movement) and it's been used throughout the ME for 20 years by many groups, following its adoption during the first Intifadah to reflect the movement's divergence from the Gazan wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
  
  
  
  It's use as a nickname for an insurgent group in Iraq played on the notion that it was adopting violence to evict an occupier (hey, that's us!) and that it was willing to eventually become a political party.
  
  
  
  Well, events change, right? It's now both a militia temporarily allied to the US in a common fight against its real and perceived enemies (AQIZ and Iran) and a political party following in the "Awakening" mold.
  
  
  
  The hard reality is that today Hamas of Iraq has quite different policy goals from Hamas in Gaza (including the receiving of funds and armaments from Iran), whereas AQIZ continues in its near enemy capacity to travel ideologically alongside the formal al Qaeda current in NW Pakistan.
  
  
  
  At best, you're left with an irony (Hamas in Iraq is allied to the US, but Hamas in Gaza is not).
  
  
  
  I can live with irony, so long as the ironic don't mind killing AQIZ.
  reply
• 

  paddler13

  1 year ago

  And the further irony of that no-man's land that fosterd the much touted terrorist camp in Iraq rhetoric used before the war is that it was under the Northern No-Fly zone, protected by US warplanes from attack by Saddam. The same No-Fly zone that also fostered the Kurdish revival in Northern Iraq along the Turkish border. So really, that AQ influence in Iraq would not have been there had Saddam been able to get at that camp and that group, but he couldn't because we were unwittingly, or unintenionally, protecting them with our air cover. So really they do exist in Iraq because of us, not because of anything to do with the Iraqi government before we invaded.
  
  But yeah, I hear you on the differences between groups, and I understand those differences though maybe not to the depth you do. However, my point was the ridiculous conflation by our adminstration for political purposes and how easily that can be used. A Hamas/Hamas connection would be easy to make if they wished but right not it is not politically useful, most Americans don't know the difference and wouldn't make the distinction and would thus buy into, with the same gullibility as the Saddam/9-11 connection (which still lingers).
  reply
• 

  pgk4usa

  1 year ago

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hamas in Syria/Palestinian territories is Shiite, supported by Iran, and is fighting against the Sunni-controlled, US-supported gov't in Lebanon; whereas the Hamas mentioned by COL Lehr is Sunni.
  
  
  
  Are the two groups connected in any way other than they both chose the same name?
  
  
  
  Also, it's worth noting that there were several extensive terrorist training camps in Iraq, camps whose "students" fought US forces on the March to Baghdad. I had second-hand knowledge of them (I was in country but not in the 101st or 2 ACR). I'm puzzled why their existance and activities have never become part of the war's narrative.
  reply
• 

  infinityzen

  1 year ago

  I find it funny that everyone was concentrating on Hamas of Iraq and ignored two of the other groups, the 1920
  reply