NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, apparently the new Iraqi government doesn't agree.

In fact they are now planning to offer amnesty to Sunni insurgents as part of a peace package that includes a timetable for US troop withdrawl from their country.

Good move? I think so.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/23/ixnews.html)

Good move? I think so.Good intentions, perhaps. I'm not so sure it's clever though. It puts the US is a bad position, which probably won't help create peace. IF the US refuses, it will probably re-ignite the civil war & further undermine the pseudemocracy.

The United States military, the most powerful military force in the world can't make it work, what makes us think that the Iraqi Security forces can?

The United States military, the most powerful military force in the world can't make it work, what makes us think that the Iraqi Security forces can?

Because a large part of the violence is because the US military is there?

Well, a timetable presented by the Iraqi government isn't a bad idea but a unilateral one proposed by the US is. The Iraqis should be the ones to tell us when they feel Iraq is stable enough to stand without a US troop presence; if they feel a timeline is in order than the US would do well to listen to it because no one can measure the sentiments of the country better than the Iraqis themselves.

If they feel they are ready to set up a timetable for withdrawal, then they probably are ready to stand on their own.

The United States military, the most powerful military force in the world can't make it work, what makes us think that the Iraqi Security forces can?Because the occupation forces creates the enemy they're fighting.

I have mixed feelings about this.

One the one hand, it will help promote peace in the country by making the insurgent groups feel they have a say, and give them an interest in protecting this grant of power, and an interest in releasing their comrades. Amnesty can be a very powerful incentive to stop fighting, especially among those who may be regretting the decision to have taken arms in the first place, or would be if there was a "way out."

On the other hand, the insurgency is being rewarded for having instilled fear of a civil war, and it is creating a conflict of interest between the Iraqi government which is trying to preserve itself, and US interests in the region, both tactical (a planned, announced US withdrawal would embolden the insurgency) and aethstetic (some of the US military personnel are probably extremely reluctant to "let the issue go" as is suggested in the article.)

Personally, I think that, since I err towards caution, the policy might require some review in itself, or maybe some good propaganda to portray the terror groups as valid political organizations with a desire for peace, and THEN granting them a policy such as this.

Update:

After weeks (years) of shouting down democrats as "cut & runners" the administration and the GOP are now getting on board with it, and so is the general in command in Iraq.

"...[I]n order to appeal to those Americans who do worry about the open-ended commitment to Iraq, word is emerging from US sources that the general in charge in Iraq, George Casey, has drawn up a proposal under which there would be, in the words of the New York Times, "sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September"..."

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5115064.stm)

Well, apparently the new Iraqi government doesn't agree.

In fact they are now planning to offer amnesty to Sunni insurgents as part of a peace package that includes a timetable for US troop withdrawl from their country.

Good move? I think so.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/23/ixnews.html)

Their timetable doesn't have any specific dates on it.
The one put together by General Casey apparently does.

The United States military, the most powerful military force in the world can't make it work, what makes us think that the Iraqi Security forces can?
It's an internal Iraqi matter now, isn't it?

As soon as US forces leave, Iraq will completely descend into bloody civil war and a new Saddam will emerge...

The chances are good to excellent that the US Government doesn't have the foggiest idea who it will be...

What is going on now simply prolongs the agony...

History repeats itself yet again...

As soon as US forces leave, Iraq will completely descend into bloody civil war and a new Saddam will emerge...

The chances are good to excellent that the US Government doesn't have the foggiest idea who it will be...

What is going on now simply prolongs the agony...

History repeats itself yet again...
Perhaps, but it's best to remember that the Americans had the choice to not see history repeat itself, a choice they discounted to their own 'agony'. Colour me unsympathetic to the plight of bagmen.

Because the occupation forces creates the enemy they're fighting.
You just went over too many people's heads.

Perhaps, but it's best to remember that the Americans had the choice to not see history repeat itself, a choice they discounted to their own 'agony'. Colour me unsympathetic to the plight of bagmen.
Are you referring to the post-9.11 attitudes of the state?

Well, apparently the new Iraqi government doesn't agree.

In fact they are now planning to offer amnesty to Sunni insurgents as part of a peace package that includes a timetable for US troop withdrawl from their country.

Good move? I think so.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/23/ixnews.html)
Actually, a timetable made by the US is a bad idea It's a very different thing if the iraqi government comes up with it. For that matter, the timetable in question is only applicable if the Sunnis kiss and make up.

An Iraqi army is much better equipped to handle Iraqi problems than an American one. Iraqis, surprisingly, speak Arabic and thus able to communicate their actions to the people on the street. And as the army grows it will become more and more likely that people will know someone in it, this will humanise the Iraqi Army in a way that the American Army could never be.

However, this isn't the case yet. The Iraqi troops need training, and while that is happening we need to 'stay the course' and keep their backs.

Well, apparently the new Iraqi government doesn't agree.

In fact they are now planning to offer amnesty to Sunni insurgents as part of a peace package that includes a timetable for US troop withdrawl from their country.

Good move? I think so.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/23/ixnews.html)

Look folks, it is a place to start. He is not proposing amnesty for those who have murdered or committed other criminal acts. They have given amnesty before, remember Sadar (sp?)? If it works, if it helps stop the violence, unifies the country, and allows them to move on and start building the infrastructure then it is a good thing. No specific dates for a timetable are also good, as it will allow them to readjust to changing circumstances. It is something the government of Iraq has come up with so I say go for it.