In Iraq, how can the US identify "the enemy"?

While being interviewed on the record by the AP recently, Major General Rick Lynch quite candidly noted:

"It's critical to better coordinate between coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and concerned citizens," as he calls the vigilante-style groups that have sprouted up across the country to fight extremists.

The comments reflect rising concerns about possible friendly fire killings that could threaten to undermine the U.S. strategy of seeking alliances with local Sunni and Shiite leaders to fill the vacuum left by a national police force that has been plagued by corruption allegations and infiltration by militants.

Incidents of shooting of civilians at checkpoints has drawn allegations by many, in Iraq and beyond, that U.S. troops and contractors are quick to fire and ask question later.

Such criticism was widespread after the March 2005 fatal shooting of an Italian intelligence officer at a checkpoint near Baghdad airport. The officer was traveling at night shortly after securing the release of a kidnapped Italian reporter, who was wounded along with an Italian driver when a U.S. soldier opened fire. The U.S. military has said the soldier acted appropriately in the incident.

After the Abu Lukah shooting, the so-called North of Hillah Awakening Council staged a three-day strike to register its anger over the loss of three of its members, but guards resumed their posts on Sunday.

"Such acts will create a gap between us and the Americans. We are trying to restore security in the area while the Americans are killing us," Nabil Saleh, 37, said as he stood with his AK-47 slung over his shoulder at his post in Abu Lukah.

Jabar Hamid, a 33-year-old Shiite from the village, said the U.S. military had paid $2,500 to each family of the three men killed.

"It is a tragedy and regrettable thing," he said.

From this mater-of-fact wire story, we learn that the US is paying off so many "terrorists" in the Iraq to keep rival factions off balance that we can no longer readily identify which gang is currently "on our side" - leading to obvious logistical problems like innocent civilians getting their heads blown off by our GIs; and (2) the Pentagon is currently valuing the life of an Iraqi killed in a "regretable" act of "friendly fire", meaning the "tragic" result of "collateral damage" from coalition forces, is $2500.

But it gets even better . . .

In a bid to distinguish the [US] recruits from potential militants, the groups have been given vests with reflective stripes, similar to those worn by traffic police in many countries. Others wear brown T-shirts with Iraqi hats similar to those worn by the national army.

Capt. John Newman, 31, of Columbus, Ga., said the soldiers believe they can discern volunteers from the insurgents.

"We've given them their road guard vests," Newman said. "So, he'd better be wearing that vest if I see him carrying an AK-47."

Lynch stressed the Americans are not arming the groups because the men already have weapons, primarily AK-47s that are legally permitted in Iraqi households.

"We are allowing the people of Iraq to secure their own areas and they are using their personal firearms to do that," he said.

(The Pentagon's claim that their hands are clean in this civil anarchy is laughable if recent history serves as a rough guide, Ed.)

The southern belt of Baghdad is a mosaic of Sunni enclaves, such as Arab Jabour and Jisr Diyala, once al-Qaida havens, and all-Shiite strongholds, such as the town of Nahrawan. In that community, the country's strongest Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, has lately been overshadowed by rogue Shiite elements and "gangs," as the U.S. military describes them.

Iraqi volunteers — both Sunnis and Shiites — mostly watch over their neighborhoods, guard mosques and man checkpoints. The theory is that, as natives to the area, they can better recognize foreign fighters and al-Qaida loyalists in their midst.

The tactic was first implemented in the Sunni western Anbar province, and later in Diyala, a province northeast of Baghdad.

Now it is being tested in Lynch's territory, such as the wind-swept planes surrounding U.S. patrol base Hawks, 20 miles southeast of Baghdad — one of 36 small bases Lynch's troops have built up as outposts in their region.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Shiite leaders have expressed concern over the American policy of sponsoring armed Sunnis, many of whom were likely former insurgents.

(So "volunteers" aren't being armed by the Pentagon, but Sunni militia members are? Ed.)

"Acceptance rules for these recruits should be within a legal framework so that we do not allow the emergence of new militias," al-Maliki said Friday during a meeting with the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.

The U.S. military says the ultimate goal is to bring the volunteers into the Iraqi security forces, which the Americans hope will be eventually able to take over the country's security so they can go home.

Lynch insisted that every volunteer is nominated by tribal leaders and vetted by Americans with retina scans and fingerprinting. The serial numbers of their AK-47s also are logged.

I'd love to know what "being vetted" actually entails in this context. And the serial numbers of "volunteers'" AK-47s are tracked, but all Iraqi citizens are legally able to own AK-47s and keep them in their homes? I can see how the Pentagon brass think this new plan is going to help secure Iraqi civilians from the volunteer armed insurgents it is arming and vetting to kill rival militias.

For some more background info on these developments, peruse this post from democrats.com (not affiliated with the Democratic party) originally released back in July here as well as this great article from CounterPunch written way back in January 2005 here.

And don't miss this discussion over at Dissent Magazine on "Exit or No Exit? Morality and the Withdrawal from Iraq," appearing in the publication's Winter 2008 issue. Panelists include: Jean Bethke Elshtain, Sohail Hashmi, Gerard Powers, Trudy Rubin, and Michael Walzer.

According to the discussion:

There has been considerable--and heated--argument over the potential exit strategies from Iraq. Last month, Dissent co-editor Michael Walzer, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Sohail Hashmi, and Gerard Powers debated the moral and political consequences of withdrawal from Iraq at Fordham University. The panel, which was sponsored by Fordham Center on Religion and Culture and Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, was moderated by Trudy Rubin, the foreign affairs columnist of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Update: Watch this powerful video from the New York Times I came across this afternoon titled "Know Thine Enemy" (permalink here) on the idological roots of the Iraqi resistance to US occupation.