The Shia and the Kurds populate the area over the oil. Saddam and the Sunni stole it. I've been expecting that the Sunni would get a share of future oil revenues as a payment for functioning as a buffer between the Shia and the Sunni.

Similar dynamic in Saudi Arabia. The Shia overlie the oil.

The Sunni turned against Al Qaeda because they are bin Laden's boys are savages. And because American forces protected their city mouse cousins from Shia death squads. And because Abdullah, the King of the Sauds, awoke to the Persian march to the Mediterranean Sea.
============================

These leftists are grasping at straws. It's money, no, it's because the surge is failing, no, it's about oil, no, noooooo, nooooooooooooo, noooooooooooooooo.

Somebody, stop the music. Don't you know it's a quagmire.
==============================

>The Shia and the Kurds populate the area over the oil

kim, fyi

I didn't blog it yet, I'm waiting for a confirming report, but it is interesting.

$75k a month? To not attack us or the Iraqi government and to attack terrorists and anti-government forces instead?

Let's do this with 500 tribes if it's working.

Call me dense, but even if true, where's the scandal?

Bribing Sunni insurgents to fight al-Qaida? If I see any scandal it's that we didn't do it sooner.

But we might want to recall the mobster's definition of a "good cop:" one who when he's bought, stays bought.

--|PW|--

I'm with Murdoc. Even if the article is absolutely accurate, what, exactly, is the scandal here? $250K to wipe out an Al Qaeda camp? That seems way better than $1200K for a Tomahawk (although that may be coming down to $600K).

Moreover, I suspect that the basic money transfer is correct. The USA has been handing out cash to tribes for redevelopment. I certainly hope that there's also a tacit "whack these losers for us, OK?" along with the cash.

I really, really despise anonymous comments and stories that are published without attribution. These violate the very spirit of the Constitution. One is supposed to have the right to face one's accuser and the accuser does need to be accountable for his or her statements.

Anyone can say anything, and they often do, without fear of reprisal in an anonymous setting. But when those allegations are able to visit harm then they need to be accompanied by the names of sources.

It is a "scandal" because it would mean that we were winning the war through the help of the Iraqi's and instead of engaging them in the precious dialogue the lefties covet so much, we would be paying them to do the right thing.

I also do not see the problem here. The money that might be going to these groups, if true, is far less than the actual war is costing.

Call me dense, but even if true, where's the scandal?

Desperate and Sad.

Paul H: Cash flows out of Washington like water to anyone who can get a Congressman to add a rider to a bill.

Ain't that the way it's SUPPOSED to be, Paul? Your pork is my desperately needed development funding? Heaven forbid the money go to something actually useful - where would the fun be in pointing fingers and acting outraged?

Paul H. is no longer allowed to post on my threads. Ignore him.

It will be interesting to see how the media reacts to Brit Hume's exclusive interview with Petreus and Crocker on Monday night.LINK

Sorry, broken link:

[not any more i fixed it bit I'll mention people need to scroll down. -ed]

It will be interesting to see how the media reacts to Brit Hume's exclusive interview with Petreus and Crocker

speaking of "Bad Journalism", the A/P has this headline up now:
Biden faults Petraeus on Iraq assessment

and then begins with this paragraph:

President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq...

They actually run a story about a man criticizing a report he hasn't read (because he doesn't have it), and testimony that HASN'T BEEN GIVEN YET!

hey Biden...STFU until you actually KNOW SOMETHING! (ok, in Joe's case that would be FOREVER!)

Call me dense, but even if true, where's the scandal?

Pat Dollard reported this very story 5 months ago. The difference of course is Dollard gave the contect behind the program where the slam artists at the Times didn't.

Here's his first para, read the rest:

In April, I ran a couple of stories about what was at the time the largest cash payment we had yet made to an Al Anbar tribe as part of an alliance deal. I'd seen things like this go down myself on a smaller scale, and the story about the tribe in question in my posts was told to me by an unimpeachable military source in Al Anbar. It's not simple bribery, as the Sheiks and their people are often in serious need of financial aid, especially for weapons and ammunition. But motivation and a displays of good will and good faith are undeniably part of why we do it.

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand ...the Sunday Times may be pissed that their "hand" didn't see some of that cash.

On the other hand (no pun intened)how much were the local stingers of questionable integrity, existence etc paid by the Sunday Times?

As Paul noted, if they "witnessed at first hand" and can't/won't produce one item of identification why shouldn't we assume the paper made the whole story up?

... Next thing you know, people are going to be accusing the United States Armed Forces of being mercenaries for accepting money for their service.

If these people's efforts can be purchased for that cheap, it is much cheaper than employing our own equipment and forces. Of course, since the liberals only exist to spend money, I wonder why they are objecting to this.

Call me dense, but even if true, where's the scandal?

I was going to say the same thing. I hope it *is* true, and they expand the program.

how much were the local stingers should say "local stringers"