Tim Blair

Now these guys, these guys can be called Minutemen.

And they will win. I hope they nail Zarqawi.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the headlines in the Age - "Iraqi Patriots Defy Al-Quaeda".

You aint gunna see it.

And $25 million to boot, if they can do it. Hope they don't use our money against US.

Gee I hope they dont scare the baddys away. The more that turn up in Iraq to get deaded the better.

Could Eminem be banned?

'shizzle my dizzle'? who are you? Dr Seuss?

How long till Fisk or the other usual supsects call them terrorists?

This is great.
I can see these guy's catching Zarqawi ,then they will stand behind him making their warning before they chop his head off.
All covered by our own Al Jazeera the ABC details provided by Kerry O'brien

"Five men, their faces covered with Arab headscarves, were flanked by rocket-propelled grenades, pistols, rifles and an Iraqi flag."

OBVIOUSLY AMERICANS posing as Iraqis? were they sitting on plastic chairs and playing with plastic turkeys?
Like the reaction, i just got from a melbourne leftoid when i told him that the americans had record 1.8 tons of radioactive uranium from iraq.
"If the Americans found it, they must have planted it !"

Not sure why this would surprise or upset any of the main-stream media or anti-war folks. They have been telling us all along that there is no way "secular Iraqis" could find any common ground with AQ. The Salvation Movement just proves the point.

This is good news as long as they're not ultimately anti-American. I can imagine a group opposing Zarqawi in the name of Iraq and garnering public support, then turning that against the US and maybe the Interim Gov't, or forming a popular party premised on some less than desirable idealogy. Like I said, it's good new for now, but I'm not getting my hopes up too much.

It looks like Iraq will end up with the kind of warlordism seen in Afghanistan. It is not "good news" that a group of people are taking up arms to impose their will, not matter whether you agree with them or not. Any private militia is dangerous for Iraq's stability, regardless of its supposed religious or political leanings. Such militias are notoriously fickle and could easily turn against the interim government if they start feeling confident. Anyone with an interest in Iraq's long-term stability should call for the disarming, demobilisation and rehabilitation of all armed combatants. Unless this happens, Iraq can never become a democratic and sovereign state.

Anyone with an interest in Iraq's long-term stability should call for the disarming, demobilisation and rehabilitation of all armed combatants.

Rehabilitate al-Zarqawi! On second thought, no, killing him will do nicely.

Unless this happens, Iraq can never become a democratic and sovereign state.

Certain countries like India will be surprised to hear that one can't be a democratic and sovereign country if there are any armed combatants within their borders... Or the U.S., with their various (if miniscule in size) anti-government militias. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but hyperbole doesn't strike me as the right answer, for some reason.

How do we know these guys are not part of an Iraqi gov't. special services team, trying a) to scare Zarqawi into leaving, b) scare his followers into turning on him, or failing that, c) kill him? I think to assume these guys are independent actors is premature.

As much as I'd love to see Zarqawi get what he has coming, I can't get to excited about this. Like RC noted, these vigilantes could conceivably turn on the US, and have already made a dig at the coalition in their statement. Or, this could be Iraqi's equivelant of the "Moose Patrol" where the vigilantes attempt to get credit for something (reduced violence in the short term, following the transfer of power) that was likely to occur anyway.

If you want to see what heavily armed militias can do, take a look at General Dostum in Afghanistan. A former Northern Alliance commander, his militias effectively run three provinces using the money they earn from heroin exports and in defiance of the transitional government. To me, that is no way to run a country.

If Iraq is to turn into another Afghanistan, then there is no hope for stability in the Middle East and there can be no safety for Israel.

PW: "Certain countries like India will be surprised to hear that one can't be a democratic and sovereign country if there are any armed combatants within their borders"
Areas run by anti-government militias tend not to have stable and legitimate government. Perhaps you disagree. But as an Indian, I can tell you that Kashmir, Bihar, Assam and other Indian states are big problems for good governance and security. One of my tenants in Kolkata, an Assamese railways contractor, was abducted by ULFA guerrillas who demanded a ransom that left him virtually destitute.

This is what private armies, terrorist groups, mercenaries and militias - whatever their creed - do: they kidnap civilians, assassinate elected politicians and run crime syndicates. If it is allowed to flourish, this is what the "Salvation Movement" will do. But trade guns in for rehabilitation programmes and dialogue and you will see a transformation. This has been achieved in India with the Nagaland and Gorkha militants.

If the Salvation Movement is a ruse by the Iraqi government to scare al-Zarqawi, it is a foolish gesture and will not achieve the desired goals. Play with these goons and you are playing with fire.

Areas run by anti-government militias tend not to have stable and legitimate government. Perhaps you disagree.

No, I don't disagree. The point is, these guys aren't running anything, and as long as the U.S. presence continues (at the very least), groups like them will not run anything. It's vigilant justice...not something I approve of, but also not a case of threatening the structure of the state.

And you're still engaging in hyperbole, this time with the comparison to Afghanistan. That country has had a pervasive warlord culture for more than two decades now, and had a highly splintered tribal culture even before. That's hardly a valid point of reference in the context of Iraq, and I think you know it.

"That country has had a pervasive warlord culture for more than two decades now"

I thought it was more like two millenia. Considering that, it's amazing we made any progress there at all. Sometimes I wonder if the antiwar left thinks Americans have magical superpowers that we are simply refusing out of spite to use to transform the world instantly into a paradise.

No, I think the Left thinks they themselves have magical superpowers, but those damned Americans keep getting in the way...

Actually, Dan has a point about shadow governments run by insurgents. Check out the Columbian insurgency -- a good portion of the country is run by the guerillas, who support their shadow government by encouraging and then taxing the cocaine trade.

The basic issue is that vigilante justice is uncontrolled, which can lead to anarchy. And that's exactly what this new group is proposing, vigilante justice. That's why it gets hunted down so quickly in the USA. I agree with their objectives, but the means terrify me. It's a dangerous road these guys are going down, be they independent or a covert government operation.

The way I see it, Zarqawi and his minions are enemy combatants (by any reasonable definition).

So let's turn things around a bit...imagine Zarqawi's group was terrorizing the United States with the express goal of bringing down the government. Are you saying that you wouldn't be in favour of regular citizens using their guns to apprehend and/or kill these terrorists if they found them? I always figured that's what the second amendment is about, at least in part...private citizens doing their part for the safety of the state, when the circumstances call for it. Iraqis can't be trusted with the same?

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume that they're going to turn against the government and/or the U.S., just because they have guns and professed a willingness to use them against a specific target.

PW, if I thought it would help under those circumstances, I would open my personal arsenal, pass out the spare ammo, and volunteer to man a guard post. I consider self defense an obligation as well as a right. But I would not hare off on my own, on some search and destroy mission. I would volunteer my services to local authorities as a trained soldier (which I am). The second amendment calls for a regulated militia, not a mob. Most supporters of this amendment agree that this means trained and responsible weapon owners. Check out the National Rifle Association -- they advocate training in the use of small arms as part of responsible gun ownership.

And even "back when", the militia operated as a force responsible to civilian leadership, not an independent force.

I agree, we ought to give these characters the benefit of the doubt. God knows Zarqawi is an evil and viscious bastard best seen face down on some street. His ability to cause chaos with but a few thousand people makes him a prime target for assassination, preferably in a very nasty and public manner.

The problem is one of control. Who would you rather have roaming Iraq, looking for Zarqawi: a trained team of professionals engaged in covert operations, working in coordination with Iraqi and Coalition forces; or an independent group of assassins who are more desirable only in that they hate Zarqawi more than us?

Granted, I don't know that this new group hates the west. But you don't know that they love us, either. It's also possible that this "Salvation Movement" has only the objective of killing Zarqawi, and will peacefully disband.

On the other hand, you might want to read about the battles around Najaf with Sadr -- those characters were losing, and yet they continued to charge armored vehicles with only small arms. Is this a culture where rational thought overrides vengenance, retribution, and blood feuds?

Please note that Iraqis have already been murdered for cooperating with Coalition forces, probably by Zarqwai and his network. The "Salvation Movement" essentially promises the same thing in return.

"The end justifies the means" is what we are discussing here. That's a correct statement only if you understand and accept the cost for the means to the end. There's always a cost.

I've thought about it, and I agree, the potential is high for this "Salvation Movement" to cleanse Iraq of Zarqwai and his scum compatriots. But that accepts the risk of vigilante justice in a nation that is already dealing with terrorism, gang warfare, and other violence.

But the bottom line is that this is an Iraqi problem, not ours. I just hope that these folks know what they are doing, because it's an ugly road they travel.

The IRA grew out of "vigilant justice", defending the nationalist community in Northern Ireland from violent police attacks by the racist Stormont government. It then extended its campaign to the British mainland, bombing shopping centres, pubs and hotels and carrying out political assassinations.

As for Afghanistan, I admit that it's not identical to Iraq - but it is a better comparison than the US. Tribalism and religious sectarianism do exist in Iraq; the Ba'athist regime's power came from the manipulation of tribal and religious loyalties, ensuring that the Tikriti clan stayed in charge. We know very little about the militias in Iraq, who runs them, where they operate, their size, etc. So, it's hard to make any judgement on any of them, including the Salvation Movement.

I totally agree with "The Real JeffS". Moreover, I think the Salvation Movement should be put under the command of the Iraqi government and be made to obey the rule of law.