[yeahright]

These are public policy decisions for the Iraqis to decide for themselves, but this doesn't make sense to me even if we are to accept that the underlying idea is a good one.

If you're going to grant pardons only to those "insurgents" who haven't killed anyone, are you really granting pardons to "insurgents"? Wouldn't an "insurgent" who hasn't killed anyone be better decribed as merely "disgruntled"? Isn't the idea of an amnesty program to get people to lay down their arms and join the political process? Is an amnesty going to work if you only open it up to those so ineffective that they couldn't actually kill anyone or so unmotivated that they didn't try?
__________________________________________________

Iraqi PM Offers Olive Branch to Insurgents
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday offered an olive branch to insurgents who join in rebuilding Iraq and said lawmakers should set a timeline for the Iraqi military and police to take control of security throughout the country.

The prime minister made no mention of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in a 24-point national reconciliation plan he presented to parliament.

The plan would include an amnesty for insurgents and opposition figures who have not been involved in terrorist activities. Al-Maliki stressed that insurgent killers would not escape justice.

``The launch of this national reconciliation initiative should not be read as a reward for the killers and criminals or acceptance of their actions,'' he said. ``There can be no agreement with them unless they face the justice.''

The Iraqi leader, who has been in power just over a month, said he was realistic about the difficult road that lay ahead.

``We realize that there is a legion of those who have tread the path of evil (who) ... will continue with their criminal acts,'' he said.

But he held out an offer of peace to those who renounce violence, while threatening retribution and punishment to those who do not.

``To those who want to rebuild our country, we present an olive branch ... And to those who insist on killing and terrorism, we present a fist with the power of law to protect our country and people,'' he told lawmakers, who applauded his speech.

The plan won the endorsement of the senior Sunni political figure in parliament.

``In the name of Iraqi Accordance Front, I support and agree with this initiative and call upon all Iraqis to support it because it will be the first step toward security, stability and the building new Iraq,'' said Adnan al-Dulaimi, the leader of Accordance Front, which represents the three key Sunni political parties in parliament.

The Iraqi parliament was to debate the plan, which is believed to face considerable opposition among hard-liners on both sides of the Sunni-Shiite divide.

In southern Iraq, the first of Japan's force of 600 soldiers started withdrawing from the country, crossing the border into Kuwait, according to Associated Press reporters and the Japanese Defense Agency

The Japanese withdrawal began with the departure of about 15 vehicles transporting trucks, bulldozers and equipment from the provincial capital of Samawah early Sunday morning for the 210-mile journey south to Kuwait. Japanese troops were conducting a humanitarian and reconstruction mission.

Al-Maliki's reconciliation plan said there should be a timeline established for Iraqi forces to take over all security duties in the country. It included no specifics on the withdrawal of American and British forces, a Shiite lawmaker told The Associated Press.

Al-Maliki said the general amnesty would exclude ``those who committed crimes against the Iraqi people.''

The most controversial section of the amnesty plan was left ambiguous. Initially it was said to have excluded only those who had killed Iraqi people. But in parliament Sunday, al-Maliki spoke of refusing amnesty to those who had committed terrorist acts, apparently including attacks on American military personnel.

The plan also seeks compensation for former detainees ``and those who were killed by Iraqi and American forces.'' Time spent in prison would be considered as part of a former detainee's mandatory military service.

An early draft of the plan also called for a general pardon for thousands of prisoners who are determined not to have committed ``crimes and clear terrorist actions.''

Hundreds of prisoners have been pardoned and release in recent months in what is seen as a bid by the Shiite-dominated government to appease Sunni Arab anger over allegations of random detentions and maltreatment.

The proposal also would set rules of engagement for military offensives, requiring military leaders to take into consideration and special conditions that might indicate an attack is not warranted.

That was seen as a bid to alleviate Sunni anger over the alleged killing of innocent civilians and bystanders by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The reconciliation plan also would call for a reconsideration of policies against supporters of former President Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party.

The plan said a dialogue should be opened with all organizations willing to participate in the political process ``except al-Qaida'' and hard-line supporters of Saddam.

Shortly after taking office May 20, al-Maliki vowed to take over security responsibilities from American and other foreign troops in all of Iraq's 18 provinces within 18 months.

He already has announced plans to take over security from coalition forces in the southern province of Muthanna next month and Japan ordered the withdrawal of its 600 ground troops home from the area.

The New York Times reported that U.S. Gen. George W. Casey Jr. has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence in Iraq, with the number of American combat brigades projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by the end of 2007.

The first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced, according to the plan Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq.

The report cited officials describing a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Military officials in Iraq, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information, said there were plans to start the withdrawal by pulling out two brigades in late summer or early fall. Those troops could include forces currently based in the west of Baghdad and in Salaheddin province to the north of the capital.

The administration has repeatedly said that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can defend the country against a lethal insurgency that rose up after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

Casey said earlier this week that he expected reductions in U.S. forces this year but did not agree with congressional efforts to put a timetable on the effort.

Associated Press writers Kim Gamel and Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.

[MaynardMeek]

we did the same thing in our country after the civil war.. and if iraq went into a civil war.. the winning faction would have to do the same thing if they wished for peace.. but i will say.. if they give amnesty for those that killed... then i will then say leave iraq and wash our hands of it...

there is something to be said about having non violent insurgents.. they do exsist.. it may not be the best name for them.. but they are just as effective as guns... just ask the british whilst in India

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

we did the same thing in our country after the civil war.. and if iraq went into a civil war.. the winning faction would have to do the same thing if they wished for peace.. but i will say.. if they give amnesty for those that killed... then i will then say leave iraq and wash our hands of it...

there is something to be said about having non violent insurgents.. they do exsist.. it may not be the best name for them.. but they are just as effective as guns... just ask the british whilst in India

I fully understand that all civil wars end with some such amnesty. But the purpose there is to convert combatants into noncombatants.

Here, by limiting the amnesty to noncombatants, the program won't actually reduce violence. By definition, it won't turn combatants into noncombatants.

This just puzzles me.

It's like saying that the government is willing to forgive those too timid or inept to put up effective resistance but that those who are effective (those who have inflicted death upon Coalition and Iraqi forces) have no other choice but to fight on.

I don't understand what this amnesty program is supposed to achieve.

This would appear to harden the resolve of those who are good at fighting us and offer forgiveness to those who weren't fighting us....so what are they being forgiven for? Not liking us?

As to India, there is no such analogous nonviolent civil disobedience resistance to Coalition and Iraqi forces....so that's a nonpoint.

[MaynardMeek]

They may or may not have any sort of civil disobedience resistance and i would not totally reject anyone saying anything in the affirmative regarding it. I do also know that our media would jump on that if it were or is taking place.. anything to show how horrible our troops are and bush.. the better for them. But civil disobedience resistance, for the argument, can be slotted into the deffinition of insurgent... guns do not make a war.

the only good that can come of this selective program is to put more people in line for a common cause... so though these people aren't the ones causing the violence in Iraq.. they are not doing anything to stop it.. and that is just as bad.... so... get them together.. unify... .... this is the most half full way i can look at this

[CDB]

Originally Posted by yeahright

It's like saying that the government is willing to forgive those too timid or inept to put up effective resistance but that those who are effective (those who have inflicted death upon Coalition and Iraqi forces) have no other choice but to fight on.

Consider though that the violent need the support and often the help of the nonviolent. Those who move the money, secure the safe houses, arrange the delivery of weapons, etc. Some of those guys may just want a way out, and if both sides would be after their skin upon surrender it makes the status quo look better. If however they can get some measure of personal security by coming to the side of the government they may be more likely to leave their companions in the insurgency swinging.

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by CDB

Consider though that the violent need the support and often the help of the nonviolent. Those who move the money, secure the safe houses, arrange the delivery of weapons, etc. Some of those guys may just want a way out, and if both sides would be after their skin upon surrender it makes the status quo look better. If however they can get some measure of personal security by coming to the side of the government they may be more likely to leave their companions in the insurgency swinging.

Perhaps......I'm trying to think of another model in history where such a limited amnesty has de-escalated a conflict....drawing a blank at the moment.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by yeahright

Perhaps......I'm trying to think of another model in history where such a limited amnesty has de-escalated a conflict....drawing a blank at the moment.

Me too, but a complete cessation of hostilities is perhaps not the goal, perhaps because it's not possible in the end.

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by CDB

Me too, but a complete cessation of hostilities is perhaps not the goal, perhaps because it's not possible in the end.

Yeah, some conflicts end when people put away the guns and go back to work. Others just sputter out slowly as the combatants die and the conditions which created the combatants change over time.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by yeahright

Yeah, some conflicts end when people put away the guns and go back to work. Others just sputter out slowly as the combatants die and the conditions which created the combatants change over time.

Which is what I expect will happen here, for the most part.

[MaynardMeek]

it will never end, it hasn't even really ended in the USA. From time to time you get branch groups who stock pile guns etc and try to become their own little nation. For right now Waco comes to mind.. but something like that doesn't effect much of the outside world because our government is big enough to let those people know... you come out here, you will be removed from this earth. That is what the iraqi government has to do.. find that balance between violence and law....and use each as needed...

[BioHazzard]

The way it has been successfully done in Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc where there has been Islamo facist scumbags, is to hunt them down systematically and kill them off wholesale with all the brutality necessary.

Divide the conquer. Those who don't submit, are systematically hunted down and killed off. But I am sure that would be too much for bleeding hearts to stomach. When you get on the Most Wanted List of Saudi Arabia, there ain't going to be your Miranda rights and free legal counsel.

Let's face it. The reality is, the majority of the Sunnis will grab the best deal they can get. Because, despite the media rheotic, they know they are ****ed. The media would like to pretend that this so called insurgent is winning. LMAO. But the 'insurgents' and the people there, they know better what reality is. Either get the best deal they can or face slaughter. As soon as the US leaves, they are finished. They have done all the killing, torture and rape for decades. They know they are on the receiving end of it now. And there will be no restrain once the US leaves. The Kurds and the Sh1tes know who those with blood on their hands are, because those Sunnis oppressors have never bothered to hide their identities back then.

Those with blood on their hands will pay, one way or the other. The Kurds and the Shtes are not going to let them off without extracting revenge for decades of killing, rape and torture. They don't give a raging **** what the bleeding hearts in the west think.

Extracting revenge is a matter of honor and tradition.

Those with no blood on their hands will cut the best deal they can. Those with blood, with fight on, and will be killed off.

[bioman]

"Those with no blood on their hands will cut the best deal they can. Those with blood, with fight on, and will be killed off."

To some extent yes, but there is and is going to be movements by the Sunni to get their people into positions of power, influence or even just strategically positioned like the current Iraqi prison system problems. The worst of the Sunni oppressors will be remembered and hunted if they leave the Sunni controlled areas, but one must not underestimate the determination of those who are resentful of the new Iraqi govt for a myriad of reasons.

It makes sense in the end to offer inclusion to as many people as possible. There's no way to seperate the wheat from the chaff here...no way of knowing who was "violent" and who was not. We don't even currently know that and have hired on many who seek to subvert the system. BUT, all wars come to a point where both sides need to forget about revenge and just start working together to form a common cause.

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

The way it has been successfully done in Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc where there has been Islamo facist scumbags, is to hunt them down systematically and kill them off wholesale with all the brutality necessary.

Ahhhhhhh, you've misdiagnosed the problem in Iraq. First off, the Islamo Facist Scumbags WON the elections were set up for them. The two main Shia religious parties in power are pretty bad (Sadr's being more fundamentalist) and they are already running parallel government institutions according to Islamic law.

Of the insurgent groups, only those allied with Al Queda are fighting for a pure Islamist state (Shia are considered deviants from true Islam). Most of the insurgent groups claim some sort of nationalist or tribal affiliation.

Moreover, none of those states you cite are democracies.

Egypt and Algeria are very interesting examples. In Algeria, the Islamist parties were going to win the elections (according to polls) in 1992 so the military cancelled them. There has been a state of emergency with mass killings, censorship, arbitrary imprisonment ever since.

In Egypt just this year the police lined up outside polling stations and beat people who tried to vote after parties aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood were winning the exit polls.

So, you're left with a very interesting philosophical problem. If the Islamist parties are going to win free and fair elections (and then impose Islamic law), do you subvert the democracy in order to save it?

None of the conflicts you cite are examples of de-escalating multi-ethnic, multi-religious civil wars. If you want to look at conflicts that have parallels with Iraq, you need to look at Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Chechnya.

[BioHazzard]

I misdiagnosed nothing.

Algeria : How convenient of you to put the blame on the government when the mass killing, mass rape, is almost all carried out by the Islamo facist terrorists exclusively and targeting civilians. So, according to you, those fanatic murderers should be allowed to take power, in accordance to the moral prudence of upholding democracy? What kind of perversion is that? Typical of left wing garbage. But no matter, they are being wiped out and are almost extinct now.

Egypt: I see, again, you have totally forgotten about what the Islamo facist terrorists did. Remember the mass slaughter of foreign tourists? Do you know what happened following that? Do you know how Egypt ****ed the Brotherhood to hell after that? Do you know where the remnant of the Brotherhood went? That's right. They had to leave because the Egyptians are not pussyfooting with them.

Saudi Arabia: Do you know how the House of Saud deal with the last 'Brotherhood'? Do you know what the result was? Do you know what the Saudi have been doing to deal with the Al Qaeda in their midst ever since Al Qaeda turned on the Saudis? Do you know what the result is?

Yugoslavia: Do you how peace got installed? FIREPOWER!!! The Croats turned the tide when they hired American mercenaries to train their army. Peace is restored after the Serb separatists were defeated militarily. In Bosnia, the same deal. Peace is restored after the Serb separatists were bombed into submission. In Kosovo, Yeltsin was bought and paid for. He sold the Serbs' a$$ down the river and NATO (lead by the US)took over Kosovo. The last shoe is yet to drop in Kosovo. Nice lesson for nation building and democracy there.

Chechenya : The Russian employed brutal firepower and the good old tradition of killing them wholesale until the masses beg for peace. They are playing from the same rule book they played the last time they pacified Chechenya. After the Chechens got tired of the killing, the majority gave up and allied with the Russians. Right now, Chechenya is run by a Chechen warlord who is allied with Moscow. So, basically it is for the most part, Chechen against Chechen in Chechenya now. BBC NEWS | Europe | Chechen life in the fast lane

Lebanon: I don't know what kind of democracy lesson you can possibly extract from that. It is absurd to use that as a model for anything. The underlying current crisscrossing Lebanon's politic is anything but about democracy or racial harmony. There are so many domestic and international powerbrokers having their hands in Lebanon, that you are not going to know how things are going to unfold next. I can write a freaking book about the situation there. Moreover, things are so freaking muddy over there that it has got to be the biggest ****ing joke if anyone tries to use Lebanon as an example for nation building.

The simple fact is, the real world is not something that fits nicely into little pretty and nice, ideology pigeon hole.

The participants in the turmoil have a lot more at stake than philosophical conflict. If anything, philosophical conflict means **** sh1t as far as they are concerned. To them, real life conflict of interest is the driving force and the focus of their consideration.

I am not some insulated pontificator. I don't give a sh1t if popularly elected terrorist scumbags got snubbed out.


About the situation in Iraq, it isn't about ''de-escalating multi-ethnic, multi-religious civil wars." You are just eating up Al Jazeera's garbage. It is about the Kurds and Sh1tes extracting revenge against their oppressors. It is about the Sunnis seeking to get the best deal they can, using violence as leverage. It is about the dead-enders with blood on their hands and no way out. It is about Al Qaeda becoming the most effective counter Al-Qaeda weapon. It is about Iran trying to exert influence in Iraq.

The solution is a factor of what kind of deals to be cut and whether the participants can uphold their ends of the bargain.