The Three Factions of the Republican Party

While the Democratic Party has been endeavoring to factionalize its supporters over the past 30 years, amongst various racial, ethnic and social lines, and using the bonanza of government programs to pay off each in turn, the Republicans coalesced on a Cold War concept of uniting various strands of conservatism that started with Barry Goldwater and reached a peak with Ronald Reagan. Just as the Democratic Party has been working to factionalize itself, and the US population, the Republicans have slowly been decohering along differential lines in its three main strains. Today those three main strains are apparent at first glance at the leader board:

1) Security Conservatives (aka NeoCons or MilCons) - This faction represents the concept of American strength abroad as represented by its armed forces. Traditionally this has been the 'glue' that held the Republican Party together during the last stages of the Cold War, and has been one to justify expenses for the armed forces in securing the Nation abroad against attack. This faction has traditionally lacked three things to give it broader appeal within the Republican Party, on its own:

• Fiscal Policy - The ability to tax and spend has led this faction as the main deficit groups in the last stages of the Cold War only to be outdone by Democratically emplaced 'entitlements'.
• Social Policy - A tin ear has been turned, repeatedly, to the Social Conservatives inside the party in the justification that if you can't defend the Nation then there will be no society to defend.
• Domestic Policy - Here the SecCons fail greatly either assenting to liberal 'entitlements' so as to appease those groups or seeking Moderate or Liberal solutions to social problems so as to return concentration to Security.

Taken as a whole, this set of views plays out as: Security Hawks, Social Moderate to Liberal, and Fiscally Liberal.

2) Fiscal Conservatives - This group has represented the old 'Rockefeller Republicans' and big business faction in the Republican Party. Their money still holds sway in the party and they utilize that to push tax reform forward, but put little effort in following up concepts of minimizing government. So long as government 'growth' is moderate, the need to cut back on it is minimized. Additionally this group does not respect the need to enforce trade law abroad or security at home or abroad as its goal is the expansion of trade and wealth, not enforcing security. Thus it gets three main problems that does not allow it wider appeal:

• Social Policy - Like the SecCons this tends towards Moderate to Liberal, on the justification that society produces business and government is put in place to ensure that society governs the Nation. Further, expansion of trade is given as a problematic point of expanding liberty while, in fact, it just expands trade and not social ideals.
• Security Policy - As the military is a fixed asset concept, it needs only maintenance costs and is far too expensive to use abroad. A sound economy is driven by a large workforce, thus security is not a concern either at home or abroad to Fiscal Conservatives.
• Domestic Policy - The FiCons oppose expansion of 'entitlements' beyond the limits of what the economy can provide and would, generally, prefer more money to stay at home for investment rather than squandered by government. That said reduced security at home means seeking socially Moderate or Liberal plans to appease factions of the population.

Taken as a whole this group is: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Moderate to Liberal, and Security Moderate to Liberal.

3) Social Conservatives - This group represents the Socially Conservative section of society that falls into the categories of Christian Conservatives, or those adhering to the general precepts of Christianity in a fundamentalist form, and Traditionalist Conservatives who view government as the problem to society, not a solution to social ills. These two groups are having the largest shake-out at this time as the Christian Social Conservatives are making a play for big government ideals and taxation while the Traditionalist Conservatives are finding they cannot support those views and are walking elsewhere this election. The peace made between these groups in the late 1970's has held for decades, but the candidate choices are rending the Christian Conservatives from the Traditionalist Conservatives. These splits may be the ones that determine the course of the Republican Party as the Traditionalist Conservatives are, literally, threatening to walk out of the Party. Here is the schism going on:

• Social Policy - Christian Conservatives are pressing not only for a SoCon policy, but one that shifts beyond the accords made at the founding, such as separation of Church and State so as to have a Westphalian Nation that abides by that greatest of all Peace Treaties. Traditionalist Conservatives, adhering to values of hearth and home and keeping government *out* want nothing to do with Christian SoCons seeking big government backing for social policy. By putting forward and solidly backing a pro-interventionist, pro-big government candidate, Christian SoCons are walking out on the Traditionalists.
• Fiscal Policy - As with Social Policy, the Fiscal Policy of the Christian SoCons is now one that, to Traditionalists, is indistinguishable from Liberal ones. While there is some commonality with FiCons, the Traditionalists do not support expansive trade regimes without some societal backing and evidence that the message of liberty gets through via trade. To date the FiCons cannot show that, and their backing of non-national groups offends Traditionalists. Christian SoCons do seek some common cause with the SecCons, as their fiscal views on spending, although not on programmatics, tend to run together. If SecCons move towards a more Christian Conservative view, but keep the expansive taxing and spending systems so that military provisions are made, there can be some accord here, although SecCons have not had much to do with Christian SoCons due to larger problems of selling policy Nationally.
• Security Policy - Here there is some accord to SecCons, but there are limits that Traditionalists see on the use of force by the Nation. Traditionalists do not hew to an expansionist military policy and prefer policing and ensuring that few wars are had and that they are completed. Christian SoCons also see the need for few wars, due to matters of faith, but for protection of home via policing, this is only done in social enforcement venues. Of the splits over immigration, that of Christian SoCons and Traditionalist SoCons is the greatest as the Christians view those coming in as potential converts while the Traditionalists see them as not only law breakers but general scofflaws. This basic accord that had been going on here to generally look for a 'solution' has come to nothing for two decades.

This group, by being in a schismatic mode is splitting along Fiscal and Security lines with the Christians, by and large, ending up on the Liberal end of Fiscal and Security issues and the Traditionalists ending up in the Conservative end of Security and Fiscal issues.

What is fascinating is that the SoCon schism is now putting an earthquake through the SecCons and FiCons as a basic and fundamental rift is opening inside the Republican Party. From 2006-2007 the drive by SecCons and FiCons to actually get an amnesty going has so offended the Traditionalist values of law and order, that this ideal is now coalescing an admixture not seen before in the Republican Party and it, currently, has no representative as the party itself is in flux. Each of the major candidates, at this point in time, represent these factions, but are now caught in the seismic upheaval first felt as an earthquake and soon to produce a rift.

Decades of being in government and even having control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for *years* and then coming up with policy anathema to the law and order Traditionalists are sending the basic message out: What good is this party if it will NOT KEEP ITS WORD?

The SecCons, FiCons and Christian SoCons are hemming and hawing, trying to say that its about candidates. The fissures are not candidate driven solely, and these candidates represent the problems that Conservatives have had nearly 30 years to work out, and have not done so. The topping on it to the Traditionalists is the huge current size of government, expansionist social programs, lax border security and not enforcing the laws of the land. The Traditionalists understand the need for wars to punish enemies, but then seek to expand liberty thereafter not by making those enemies dependant but by teaching them how to be free. The Traditionalists have seen the other parts of the Party mouth these concepts for nearly a generation and the few tax 'reductions' and the limiting of welfare are their only scanty leavings as the government has continued to expand and erode society.

What has been interesting to see is that the Traditionalist SoCons have made some inroads into the FiCons and SecCons, even getting the message across to a number of Christian SoCons that placing the values of charity and forgiveness at home and *not* in the government is essential to society. That bit of work done for these decades has gotten stronger purchase even as the candidates, in Incumbistanian tradition, have remained the same. The Traditionalists may be seen as fed up with Incumbistan and its backers.

To get a 'unity candidate' the actual factions must unify around something, and the Traditionalist voters are not seeing that their support of the Party has gotten them anything save more and bigger government trying to do 'good' which, to them, means doing only a few things 'well' and leaving the rest up to the People. As that has not happened for 30 years, it is unlikely to happen *now* as each faction has become entrenched in its views. The other factions should worry a bit, however, as the Traditionalists are the faction of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine. They formed a Nation and their followers aim to *keep it*. Thrusting them out of the Republican Party may very well spell the end of two-party politics in America.

And the start of something wholly different.

The 1920 Brigades and what they are or aren't doing

A small update to Operation Phantom Thunder, and that is the 1920 Brigades feel that they shouldn't be included as actually helping! This via a few folks, but notably is Evan Kohlmann at Counterterrorism Blog, which cites this earlier AP via MSNBC account of 1920's working with the MNF. Mr. Kohlmann puts it like this:

In their flurry of responses, the 1920 Revolution Brigades scoffed at these reports as the product of an ongoing crusader media conspiracy designed to "cause trouble amongst the jihad factions." The group denied having any active "presence" in the Diyala province at this time and furthermore threatened to hunt down and punish anyone who maliciously attempts to "exploit" their name and reputation. Coming from a group whose former leader was assassinated only two months ago apparently at the hands of Al-Qaida, it is difficult to know for certain the degree to which these statements reflect the truth, or instead are mere lipservice aimed at avoiding further public controversy within the jihadist community.

Ah, 'factions'! Welcome to the wonderful world of factions and terrorism, brought to you by the letters AQI and, previously seen in the land of the letters IRA. Perhaps we heard from an 'Official 1920 Brigades' or 'Real 1920 Brigades' or 'Provisional 1920 Brigades' instead of the 1920 Brigades themselves!

Now the Terror Knowledge Base yields up a little on the 1920 Brigades, but it did take part in this incident, which is its major claim to fame:

The 1920 Revolution Brigades gained international media attention on 27 June 2004 when the Arab television network al-Jazeera broadcast a hostage video of captured U.S. marine Wassef Ali Hassoun. A group called Islamic Response, identifying themselves as the security wing of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. The incident later appeared to be a hoax when Hassoun surfaced in his native Lebanon three weeks after he was supposedly captured. Hassoun then reported to the U.S. embassy in Beirut and returned to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, but he disappeared again in January 2005 just before his military hearing.

We do all remember that episode, don't we? In any event we now have the ubiquitous phenomenon in the terrorist world of a 'security wing' sometimes even a 'military wing' for an already terroristic outlook. From Bill Roggio just a bit ago we get this on them:

The 1920 Revolution Brigades is considered the "nationalist element" of the Sunni, largely made up of members of Saddam's disbanded army and tribesmen. The Buhriz group turned on al Qaeda in April, after the group terrorized the local population. "[Al Qaeda] ruled Buhirz with tyranny, they really harmed our town," a member of the Sunni insurgent group told CNN. "We had to stop them, and they left, no return."

"Before, when al Qaeda was here, it was all killing and stealing," another insurgent said. "We would hide in our house this time of day [during daylight]. It was all kidnapping, killing and stealing."

Al Qaeda followed the same pattern of behavior in Anbar province, which led to the formation of the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of tribes and insurgents which battle al Qaeda. The 1920 Revolution Brigades makes up a significant portion of the leadership of the Anbar Salvation Council. Recently, the Anbar Salvation Council has sent expeditionary units into Salahadin, Diyala, Babil and Baghdad provinces to organize local Awakening movements and fight al Qaeda.

Part of the problem in believing that they are going back on their word in Diyala, is that then makes them look damned incapable to the folks in Anbar. So while the 1920 Brigades may be made up of ex-Ba'athists and a few other thugs and murder for fun folks, it doesn't really help much to go back on your word when it is given as that makes you look... well... untrustworthy. And if the Buhriz wish to have a longer life expectancy, it might be wise to figure out just what part of the 1920 Brigades is working for whom.

Now that just might be the case for Hamas in Iraq, as seen by IraqSlogger... ummm... 'Hamas in Iraq'? Ok, lets take it from the Slogger, on 29 MAR 2007:

A new group by the name of “Hamas of Iraq” has announced its formation, al-Melaf reports in Arabic.

This armed group has apparently been formed by seceding from the 1920 Revolution Brigades, which has carried out operations in many areas of the country.

This development points to the existence of divisions among the leadership of the various armed groups, which are becoming manifest as some groups follow the inclination to abandon armed operations and enter into negotiations with the government.

Sharp divisions have opened between the leaders who support these divisions, especially after the assassination attempt on the Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaei, and those who oppose them.

At the same time, al-Sabah carries a brief report pointing to splits emerging within groups affiliated with al-Qa'ida, which it says will isolate al-Qa'ida in Diyala and Anbar provinces. Al-Sabah says that the groups “would receive direct orders from Arab states” to give up armed operations and enter negotiations. The brief report does not name the groups or states it refers to.

This alleged splintering in Sunni organizations comes in tandem with reports of a similar splintering in the Mahdi Army, reported earlier.

Yes it is factionitis and splinter diversification going on! Quick, get a score card for 1920 Brigades as we can now add in - Islamic Response and Hamas in Iraq!

Buy one, get two free!

Now IraqSlogger (13 APR 2007) has a good rundown of those organizations that joined together to get rid of al Qaeda:

On Wednesday Iraqi President Jalal Talabani announced that he met with representatives of armed groups calling themselves the “national resistance,” Aswat al-Iraq reported earlier. The government is in the final stages of the negotiations, Talabani claimed.

The nine factions that signed that statement agreeing to coordinate their efforts against the Islamic State of Iraq via the new office are as follows:

Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna (Army of the Protectors of the Sunna)

Jaysh Ansar al-Muslimeen (Army of the Protectors of Muslims),

Jaysh al-Muslimeen (The Army of Muslims)

The 1920 Revolution Brigades

The Army of the Men of Tariqa Naqshabandiyya,

Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance

Al-Farouq Brigades

The Mustafa Brigades

The Ansar Allah Brigades

Yes, the 1920 Brigades are there! So 'nationalists' seeking an 'Islamic State of Iraq' but NOT controlled by any outside groups. Clear? Didn't think so... But al Qaeda has been going after the 1920 Brigades as seen by a chlorine truck bombing reported on by Mr. Roggio on 27 MAR 2007.


In any event apparently *someone* thought they were working with the MNF, from the ever doubtful when not reporting quotes AFP via ABC Australia on 01 JUN 2007:

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the number two US officer in Iraq, has told reporters that about four-fifths of the militants currently fighting American forces are thought to be ready to join Iraq's political process.

"We want to reach back to them, and we're talking about cease-fires and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the Government of Iraq or against coalition forces," he said.

As Lt Odierno was speaking to reporters by a video link to the Pentagon in Washington, residents in west Baghdad reported that insurgents from the nationalist 1920 brigades were fighting their former Al Qaeda allies.

Somehow I do smell factionalism at work with a smidgen of splinter added in. Why is that? Well, Evan Kohlmann reported on a 27 MAR 2007 cybercast for globalterroralert.com on just that thing:

[Evan Kohlmann]: “It is also, as of yet, unclear whether the ISI’s provocative behavior was the cause of a new, mysterious split in one of the organizations that it claimed was recently working underneath its umbrella: the 1920 Revolution Brigades. On March 9, the official website of the 1920 Brigades announced that the group was formally dissolving and splitting into two separate factions: the ‘Islamic Jihad’ movement and the ‘Islamic Conquest’ movement. The statement did not offer great detail as to why the split had occurred, only suggesting that the decision was made in order ‘to overcome differences and to preserve our brotherhood in Islam.’”

Yes! Two entirely, brand new factions to add in to the mix... any one of which, as seen in the lovely IRA days, can claim responsibility under the 1920 Brigades banner! Time to update the scorecard on 1920 Brigades:

1920 Revolutionary Brigades

Islamic Response

Hamas in Iraq

Islamic Jihad

Islamic Conquest

We are now up to....1..2...3...4....5... yes FIVE groups that can all claim to be 1920 Brigades or some part thereof and cause untold turmoil. Isn't this grand?

No? Well, I do wish that they would just settle down and become nice, home grown guerrilla movements with uniforms and such, too. But that, apparently, is far too honorable for these folks. Far better to form a 'faction' when you disagree on which are the best pizza toppings or proper way to build an IED. Only one of which can lead to the sudden end of a group, mind you...
These 'umbrella groups' made up of 'factions' and 'splinter groups' make keeping a scorecard on these folks a bit of a dubious occupation. Still, it does help keep track of who is in and out with whom. Quite necessary when dealing with dishonorable terrorists, really.

So who is working for whom?

Pretty simple: if the guy shows up to help, make sure you keep an eye on him and measure results. If he leads you into an ambush or trap, or gives misleading information knowingly, then you got a ringer.

If he is in your gunsights and acting like an 'insurgent', pull the trigger.

That *is* how to deal with these sorts of things in a very diplomatic fashion.

Warfare is the highest form of diplomacy, isn't it?