Sheiks With Their Own Security Forces

Obsidian Wings has a round-up of developments inside Iraq. One comment stood out to me:

This is an under-reported story: 26 of 31 sheiks have turned their backs on al Qaeda and are putting together their own security forces.

Andrew Sullivan calls this "good news" but I'm not so sure. To me it sounds more like a recipe for future warlords similar to those who tore Somalia apart. The post links to a New York Times article on the leader of this group of sheiks, Sheik Abdul Sattar.

While the sheik and his security forces are fighting al Qaeda, which short term is probably a good thing, what stands out is how this resistance is building up Sattar's personal power. He has helped appoint police chiefs. He has a 2500 man brigade who answer directly to him. Sattar has little love for the US, nor for the Iraqi government.

I don't find this encouraging at all. We're helping build up militant Iraqi sheiks in order to fight al Qaeda, but we are not developing leaders who will buttress the new government. These sheiks would not hesitate to turn on their US benefactors if it were to their benefit. This just smacks of the US' desperation in Iraq. What will happen when these sheiks and their personal armies defeat al Qaeda, should that ever happen? Aren't we just trading a short term gain against a common enemy for a longer term instability? Afghanistan springs to mind.