Daistallia 2104
03-11-2006, 14:16
This has been under discussion for some time (see: [1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402432_pf.html)] and [2 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20060623/ai_n16507284)] for more.)
It's also a standard tactic for Counter-insurgency operations (at least those that have any chance of success).
Amnesty and Democracy in Iraq
November 2, 2006: The inability of the Iraqi government to stop the growing number of revenge killing by Shia Arabs can be attributed to, well, politics. Shia Arab political parties control 56 percent of the seats in parliament. But a political party representing the largest Shia paramilitary organization (the Mahdi Army), controls 20 percent of the Shia Arab seats in parliament. Other Shia paramilitary groups control smaller blocks of seats. In effect, over a third of the Shia Arab seats in parliament are controlled by groups that are actively carrying out the revenge killings of Sunni Arabs (in particular, those who used to work for Saddam Hussein, especially the security forces.)
On the positive side, it's very unlikely that there will be a military coup. In the past, a military takeover was a constant threat to the democratically elected Iraqi governments that existed between the 1930s and 50s. The last such coup, in 1957, never let democracy take back control, it took American troops to make that happen. While there are over 300,000 people in the security forces now, they are not organized to carry out a coup. That's because so many of these troops and police are tied down dealing with the Sunni Arab terrorists. And then there are several hundred thousand Kurdish and Shia Arab gunmen in various militias, who are outside the government, and thus in no position to stage a coup.
Democracy can be a bitch at times. In Iraq, murdering former members of Saddam Husseins security forces is quite popular. Members of parliament would be going against the wishes of the voters if they backed a real crackdown on the "vengeance killings." Pressure from the United States has forced the government to go after the most notorious Shia Arab death squads, or at least their leaders.
Stopping the Sunni Arab terrorists is another political problem. The Sunni Arab killers want amnesty. Not just for the deaths that took place in the last three years, but for those that were carried out by Saddam's security forces over the last three decades. For that, deals can be worked out. Most Iraqi's are tired of the killing. But amnesty would also cover the killing of foreigners (that is, American troops). Most Iraqis are OK with that as well. But the United States is also a democracy, and the American people are not OK with that kind of amnesty. Even U.S. Democrats, many of whom would be fine with accepting that kind of amnesty, know that selling it to the American public would be a, well, formidable task. For this reason, the U.S. media stays away from the amnesty story, which has long been big news in Iraq. The latest proposal in Iraq is for the Iraqi parliament to just go ahead and make the amnesty deal, even for those who killed Americans, and let the American people scream all they want. That would be interesting…
So what do the great minds here think? If this plan goes through, would you be OK with it?
It's also a standard tactic for Counter-insurgency operations (at least those that have any chance of success).
Amnesty and Democracy in Iraq
November 2, 2006: The inability of the Iraqi government to stop the growing number of revenge killing by Shia Arabs can be attributed to, well, politics. Shia Arab political parties control 56 percent of the seats in parliament. But a political party representing the largest Shia paramilitary organization (the Mahdi Army), controls 20 percent of the Shia Arab seats in parliament. Other Shia paramilitary groups control smaller blocks of seats. In effect, over a third of the Shia Arab seats in parliament are controlled by groups that are actively carrying out the revenge killings of Sunni Arabs (in particular, those who used to work for Saddam Hussein, especially the security forces.)
On the positive side, it's very unlikely that there will be a military coup. In the past, a military takeover was a constant threat to the democratically elected Iraqi governments that existed between the 1930s and 50s. The last such coup, in 1957, never let democracy take back control, it took American troops to make that happen. While there are over 300,000 people in the security forces now, they are not organized to carry out a coup. That's because so many of these troops and police are tied down dealing with the Sunni Arab terrorists. And then there are several hundred thousand Kurdish and Shia Arab gunmen in various militias, who are outside the government, and thus in no position to stage a coup.
Democracy can be a bitch at times. In Iraq, murdering former members of Saddam Husseins security forces is quite popular. Members of parliament would be going against the wishes of the voters if they backed a real crackdown on the "vengeance killings." Pressure from the United States has forced the government to go after the most notorious Shia Arab death squads, or at least their leaders.
Stopping the Sunni Arab terrorists is another political problem. The Sunni Arab killers want amnesty. Not just for the deaths that took place in the last three years, but for those that were carried out by Saddam's security forces over the last three decades. For that, deals can be worked out. Most Iraqi's are tired of the killing. But amnesty would also cover the killing of foreigners (that is, American troops). Most Iraqis are OK with that as well. But the United States is also a democracy, and the American people are not OK with that kind of amnesty. Even U.S. Democrats, many of whom would be fine with accepting that kind of amnesty, know that selling it to the American public would be a, well, formidable task. For this reason, the U.S. media stays away from the amnesty story, which has long been big news in Iraq. The latest proposal in Iraq is for the Iraqi parliament to just go ahead and make the amnesty deal, even for those who killed Americans, and let the American people scream all they want. That would be interesting…
So what do the great minds here think? If this plan goes through, would you be OK with it?