—Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Two things: first, if the insurgents refuse the offer, Iraqi forces, with the help of the US, will have (grudging) international cover to finish them off with extreme prejudice. And second, nothing much will change in Iraq either way—except, perhaps, that should the insurgents rebuff the Iraqi government’s offer, it will be difficult for the media to keep up the ruse that the remaining fighters are anything more than a sporadically dangerous metaphor for the sectarian distrust that has long plagued Iraq.
But I suppose we’ll know more by early next week.
(h/t Dave Price)
****
update: Of course, maybe I spoke too soon. It’s happened before, you know.
(h/t Dan Riehl)
I say bring them and liquidate. F’em. Might be harsh, but think back at all the pain, suffering and horror they brought to their own people. Days like these make me wish I was still serving….
Maybe my Brother in law’s deployment will get knocked back if this goes through. Doubtful, but one can hope.
Rob B., we all can hope.
Iraq is welcome to do as they see fit with regards to their internal troublemakers, of whichever persuasion. But Al-Q don’t get squat – that’s who WE’RE at war with, and we’ll decide when they’re dead enough.
So go ahead, guys, be tolerant and forgiving with your own people. Very admirable. Good politics, probably.
But the folks who attacked MY country get no forgiveness from me. Ever. Ask your god for it, when we blow your asses to hell.
SB: cent
my two
Based on equipment movements, the Pentagon is apparently planning on major withdrawals over the next year. Under their (expected) plan, there probably won’t be many full-year deployments anymore.
If you think so, Mr. Ali. It’s your country. It probably is the right move. And I say that with complete sincerity. Although I think it may be a tad too charitable a way to characterize the fedayeen and other Saddamist squadroni.
Well, sure. Who’s surprised by that?
It occurs to me that the difference between this war and the Revolution, Civil War, and WWII (cited by the senior US official in the link) is that those wars had conscription, and it was believable that enemy soldiers were doing a job they had been forced into.
Whereas in Iraq, anybody shooting at Americans really wants to kill Americans. That’s why amnesty isn’t going to sit well with a lot of people, like me.
Fighting the insurgents (terrorists) in Iraq is not a war, it’s rebuilding a nation we’ve already defeated in war. The War on Terror continues, but what’s going on in Iraq is just the difficulty in dealing with remaining rebels and nearby nations trying to destabilize the country. Not war.
That said, I fear that giving these guys amnesty will not help matters in the long run, should they accept. I see it simply as a way to seed hateful, murderous scum into Iraqi society without dealing with them.
One of the less-covered stories in Iraq was how Hussein let thousands of prisoners free when he was invaded, and they are still for the most part free and committing crimes again. Imagine letting the worst criminals in the US free on the streets, watching them commit horrid crimes… then giving them amnesty to hope they stop.
Oh, I love that! We prosecute our own people for criminal acts, and we get this slap in the face.
Otherwise, if Iraq is going to be sovereign, Iraq needs to be sovereign. This is a good start.
And if the terrorists decline the offer, as Jeff notes, they just painted a “PLEASE SHOOT ME!” sign on their chests and backs. That would make killing them more than just a little ironic.
I suspect it will serve to bring a couple of ‘insurgents’ into the fold.
“Mohammed, I’m so fucking tired of you going out every day with your friends and blowing things up. Don’t you love me any more? Or are you seeing another woman? You promised me as soon as things had quieted down, you’d go back to work. We need the income. You think I like being married to a bum? My mother would be rolling over in her grave if she knew what you’ve put me through. This is my last decent burqa and the kids need to see their father once in a while. What do I have to do, start selling my body….?”
It could happen.
It’s chicken-and-egg. As the Iraqi gov’t was already looking to crack down on the militas in Baghdad, the current attacks outside the Green Zone should not be surprising… except maybe to the US press.
This will be an interesting rhetorical test.
If
a) The “insurgents” in Iraq are only trying to protect their country and dislodge American presence
and
b) America begins drawing down troop levels in accordance with the Iraqi government’s wishes
and
c) Sunni groups agree to the conditions and join the political process
then
What will be the cause du jour for continued attacks within Iraq?
Because then it will be “red on red”, and a new set of themes will be needed to explain why that’s happening.
Israel, of course. Duh. And the fact that the Iraqi government will be a puppet of the US (and of course, Israel). Also duh.
Will there be any addressing of the deep roots of Baathism? How about the inherent and apparently eternal conflict between the two cheif Muslim sects? Or the affects of tribalism and racial conflict in the Middle East? Or the effects of a virulent form of medieval philosophies currently ascendant in Muslim philosophy and religious practice?
Israel it is, then.
They should have declared a state of emergency right from the start. It’s time for the final showdown: let the military do its job and get it over with!
I don’t know about this. A lot will depend on how they are going to verify that the insurgent groups have disarmed. Also, will the Iraqi Govt demand that they be allowed to move in and police the areas currently being run by the insurgents? This could very well just end up giving the insurgents time to regroup.
Lately I am pessimistic about whether we can really expect that once we leave Iraq it won’t descend into sectarian warfare and wind up with a fundamentalist Islamic government that will eventually work against us in the region and not be a democratic beacon that will help spread freedom. I supported this war from the beginning and I am not trying to backtrack out of that or be unserious. I don’t think we are losing and in fact I feel that we already won in many ways. However, when I read things like the Ambassadors memo from yesterday(?) about the increasing islamist control it is hard for me to imagine that when we leave things are not going to go in that direction fairly quickly.
I just don’t see how we can force the good people over there to proactively defend themselves. If the overwelming majority of the folks don’t want to have this theocratic rule why don’t they fight back. In the Ambassadors memo he talks about how his employees say that certain people deliver the threats and intimidation. Why don’t they follow them, find the thugs who do the killing and kill them first? If my community was plagued by people like that and the police didn’t help I and my neighbors would most definately defend ourselves with arms. Yet they speak like they are helpless. We can’t do everything for them and sometimes I wonder whether we have done all we can do.
I know that people point to the horrible things that happened when we left Vietnam and say we can’t let that happen again. I agree, but the situation is so much different than then. The Iraqi army has to have the upperhand on the jihadis and the baathists. No one is talking about not continuing to supply them with equipment and perhaps some training. I don’t see how the jihadi’s or insurgents could get into a position of enough power to commit atrocities like the N. Vietnamese or the Khamer Rouge did.
I’m not saying that we should leave now or announce a timetable, I just worry that our goals in this war may not be up to us to achieve or perhaps even be achievable.
I thought they disavowed the amensty talk from last week. Funny how the Iraqis are on board with this timeline idea.
Big E:
I don’t know if this is the kind of situation where you can attain a victory that’s totally clear, as in WWII. This may be more a Vietnam-type situation, where the ultimate victors were by no means immediately apparent. Vietnam is pro-capitalist and very pro-US. It didn’t come immediately, but it came. Despite John Kerry.
You bring up a concern that should be central to us: the welfare of those Iraqis who’ve trusted us. We can’t abandon them. If we allow ourselves to be routed, as the left so fervently desires, thousands more innocent Iraqis will lose their lives.
I saw my late father cry three times in his life: when JFK was assassinated, when his mother died, and when we fled Vietnam and left millions to be murdered at the hand of the Communists. He could see it coming.
We have to demonstrate to the world that the US word stands for something. The left in the US doesn’t love humanity more than the right does; it hates Bush more.
You mean funny how the insurgent groups are demanding that the US do something which we have repeatedly said would be to their benefit? Yeah, that is funny.
actus, as usual, skims along on a logically superficial level. A “timeline” is a “timeline” is a “timeline,” no matter who specifies it or what constitutes it or why.
Whatever you say, dude.
This is the Iraqi government mentioning a UN-approved timeline. Not the insurgents
Just the other day I said that I would like to see benchmarks for withdrawl. Withdrawl steps conditioned on certain goals, along with expected dates for those goals.
And this matters … why?
If the enemy—even if the enemy is disorganized, scattered, ill-equipped, piecemeal, amateurish—knows what you’re going to do before you do it, then the enemy has the tactical advantage.
You never, ever, ever, ever, ever willingly give up the tactical advantage.
…unless you want to lose.
Because we get told that timelines for withdrawl are bad. Its significant if that’s something the Iraqi government wants.
I suppose. But then why does the Iraqi government want to do this?
An african co-worker, who is very familiar with the psychology of the tyrannized, is amazed that we have let Saddam’s trial go on like this. He says that until that bastard is dead, the people of Iraq will not be free enough to begin to totally run their country. After 30 years of absolute tyranny, the underlying fear that somehow Saddam will break his bonds and regain power is just too paralyzing to most Iraqis. We need to get that trial over with.
Would somebody go paste this on the Telephone Pole? Yes, they are mentioning a UN timeline…in the negative.
Before I drink too much champagne…
I wouldn’t get too upset with the rhetoric – I saw the same thing (in a slightly more mild version) from Karzai when he announced amnesty for the lower level/grunt types of the Taliban. Custom, tradition and cultural considerations require this sort of rhetoric to save face for those who are going to quit the fight. The Iraqis are just obeying the forms, so to speak.
That said, all of you are correct, those that refuse this gesture/offer will be much the less in the eyes of the average Iraqi. This is a good move – the only reason it wasn’t taken sooner is that the Iraqi government wasn’t strong enough to make it.
As for enforcement – they will probably do the same as the Afghans – you get an ID that says you have accepted the reconcilliation and this helps keep the person safe from (official) retribution. They also are subject to checks – almost like parole/probation for a number of years (the Afghans gave the low level fighters 1-2 years, the lower level leaders 5-10). For organizations – they will probably have to go through what was imposed in Bosnia – cantonment of weapons (with unannounced inspections) random searches of buildings, etc.
It will be hard work – but better than combat…
I am cautiously optimistic.
And I am going to see if I can get another tour in Afghanistan (or one in Iraq) – if I am told “no” that will speak volumes about what the future holds for our force levels. Mreso than anyone sitting in the Palestine Hotel or an “air conditioned office” in NYC (sorry, couldn’t resist that last snark).
Who is up for a round? I am pouring.
Jeff’s first link said: “The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq”
But maybe the Times is wrong. They also said that the US was negotiating with terrorists. So anything is possible.
Like I said, logically superficial. Sure, actus, no one you’ve talked to has given any reason in any argument why one timeline might be different from another. “[W]e get told” they’re “bad.”
I mean, I know reasoning by analogy is important in law school, but likenesses have limits, and those limits are frequently significant things to take note of. You’re not still hung up on how a society is “like” a family, are you?
Although, come to think of it, that would explain a lot.
Now eat your vegetables, young man!
– Whatever else may lay in the future of the Iraqi’s, the fact that it is, as strongly as ever, a three sect conglomerate, is absolutely out of our hands. They must be set loose to tend to their own affairs at some point, however that may go. The one thing we must insist on is to maintain some presense there in the form of limited basing, even as much as that may run up against their cultural needs. Setting aside any questions of Iraq’s future, the strategic benefits for dealing with Iran would be the least we should expect, after all the money and US lives we’ve expended there, giving the Iraqi people their first real chance at a possible form of Democratic rule, and liberty.
– Multicultural sociaties seldom can maintain a peaceful process, but it has happened, so there’s always a chance. Three sects just makes the odds that much longer, but that was always apparent from day one. The stakes are high for a lot greater reasons than just the Iraqi’s themselves.
– The whole future of the ME could well hinge, in part, on how things play out in Iraq in the next ten years. Iran, in an unexpected way, takes some of the pressure off of the US to “make it happen”, and puts more of the burden on the Iarqi’s themselves. A fragmented Iraq, with an aggressive Iran on its shoulder, gives them 10 times the incentive to get their act together.
– I am cautiously optomistic, which of course means, as always, you hope for the best, and plan for the worst.
Did you even read the article actus? The Iraqi’s are talking about the timetable because the insurgents demanded that as a part of any deal. So my point still stands, why is it surprising that the insurgents are demanding something that is to their advantage?
I gave an example of a good sort of “timeline.” But then someone else said “If the enemyâ€â€even if the enemy is disorganized, scattered, ill-equipped, piecemeal, amateurishâ€â€knows what you’re going to do before you do it, then the enemy has the tactical advantage.”
So it seems that some people still have an aversion to timelines, of whatever form.
Who will decide which insurgents are eligible for this amnesty? Or will the government sit back and let them rat each other out? And excluding those who shed “innocent Iraqis’ blood” seems like an exercise in relativism. The Sunnis and Shia would define “innocent” quite differently, I’d imagine.
Amnesty for insurgents? If that comes to pass, then the same amnesty should extend to all American soldiers too, particularly those charged with “war crimes.” If they aren’t held responsible for killing Americans, Americans shouldn’t be held responsible for killing them either.
Perhaps, as far as the Iraqis go, this will be the case. We still police our own, however, and this will not, nor should it, change anyone’s status under the UCMJ or such. But your point is still valid.
I also agree that Saddam’s trial should quickly come to some meaningful (for the Iraqis) conclusion. The whole thing has become a joke. Saddam was on a hunger strike for ONE DAY, for chrissake.
Hey, as if you could resist the yummy naan and kebob…
Funny how much the Green Zone is referenced in that article. Write about what you know. Surprised there’s nothing about how “at one point, a mortar round struck so close to the Green Zone that the set of crystal stemware perched on the minibar tinkled ominously.”
I’ve got to say that reading actus’ comments is fascinating; it’s sort of hearing my friends describe conversations with me when I was on drugs and recuperating from pneumonia—I was just a little bit behind everyone else, a bit unable to follow stuff through to completion, and amazingly enough, entirely unaware of the fact. Hell, I actually laughed out loud at a Jerry Lewis film.
But Actus actually lives his life like that. Terrifying.
“So it seems that some people still have an aversion to timelines, of whatever form.”
It doesn’t seem that way actus, the aversions exist for the obvious reasons as were brought out many, many times before. The obvious parts “seem” to evade you however.
We all understand your flaccid argument, that short of getting your approval, all else is doomed to as big a failure as you have been, in presenting your flawed thesis.
Guys, this is the Middle East here? Amnesty?
Embrace your enemy.
Seat him at your table.
Then garrotte him while he toasts your charity…
The Amnesty could be a mine field for the insurgents. If you ambushed or use IED to attack “foriegn troops” but also killed an Iraqi in the process. Could you be tried for murder ? They could get their amnesty for attacks on foriegn troops but never admit to part in the attacks because possible murder charges. But the stain of killing all those Iraqi police / army recruits, election officals, and government officals wouldn’t be covered, so their screwed. Unless of coarse they work out a deal of silence. No investigations unless someone start bragging.
I agree with ss. The Americans, from I can gather, are in hiding in Iraq.
Sorry, that was incomplete. What I meant was that the troops are in direct danger, and the shiny happy green zone houses the bureacrat9c proles. You go, hard tighty whitey rightys.
Actually I dont think its that doomed. Whats interesting is that the Iraqis were apparently asking for a UN-approved timeline. What do they know that the anti-timeliners, me included, dont?
Odd that the folks that screamed against arbitrary timelines during the formation of the provisional government, for the three votes and elections and referendums are the same idiots screaming for an arbitrary timeline to leave.
Hmmmm. Maybe its because those folk cannot keep a timeline in any case.
Or they are incompetent dishonest liars. You say potato, I say potatoe.
For God’s sack actus, READ THE ARTICLE!!!!. It was NOT “the iraqis” asking for the timeline. the INSURGENTS are asking for it and the Iraqi gov. is willing to give it to them if they’ll stop the fighting. thats a big difference.
Oh and I thought would be obvious, even to you actus, that the reason the iraqi gov is open to the idea of a timeline in this context. Most of the negatives of a timeline kinda go away if the insurgents stop fighting.
Oh, and to be snarky, the Iraqi’s probably know a lot that you don’t. Everyone else does.
Jeez, Nick! Next you’re gonna tell a rock not to let moss grow on it.
Nick. The Major has a drink for you.
Whats surprising is that the Iraqi government is into it, given that, supposedly, timetables spell victory for the insurgents. It doesn’t seem like the Iraqi government thinks so.
Thats what i’m talkin about. That the iraqi government is into the timeline if some insurgents stop fighting.
I don’t think those timelines were very arbitrary, the elections, for example, were clearly in response to shiite pressure.
So, when you say “God’s sack,” is that a reference to the almighty’s omnipotent scrotum or a typo? Because I kind of like the former, if God weren’t a spirit.
OT from the probably underappreciated late-Heinlein work Job – [ahem] Let’s see if I can get this right:
Actually, I think it was one meal. What a trouper! But when the end is near, best enjoy the gifts of the earth while you can. If indeed he is shot in October, I dread the “question the timing” accusations.
actus, you may recall that the timetables we’ve been talking about lately have been intended to be imposed by the U.S. Congress, with or without benchmarks accompanying them. We’ve been discussing a timetable (call it Timetable A) for U.S. troop withdrawals put forth by John Kerry in a U.S. election year, to which insurgents are not signatory and which imposes no obligation on them, on the Iraqi government to keep up the pace of training, anybody except us. (For that matter, in the latest version, it imposes no obligation on anybody at all since it was a “non-binding resolution,” a.k.a. an empty gesture.)
What is under discussion here is a timetable (Timetable B) for foreign troop withdrawals originating with and agreed to by the Iraqi government (at the urging of insurgent groups, indubitably) with a quid-pro-quo from covered insurgent groups to lay down their weapons, which implies a rollback if the insurgent groups fail to honor the cease-fire. Do you see the difference, and can you please acknowledge that Timetable A is very unlike Timetable B?
TW: Forward.