Iraq Amnesty Deal in the Offing

[BHS]

From the Times:

THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.

Great news, regardless of your take on the war.

I, for one, am hugely interested to see how this plays out.

[Riverwind]

I, for one, am hugely interested to see how this plays out.

Did you read the terms?

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

Seems be something doomed to fail unless there is a major change of attitude in Washington

[August1991]

Interesting news.

I don't think the problem will come from the US side:

“This is very hard for us, particularly at a time when American servicemen are facing prosecution for alleged war crimes — and others are being captured and tortured,” a senior US official said.

With 2,500 US soldiers having died in Iraq, to grant an amnesty would be a “huge political football” before the November mid-term elections in the US, he said. But he added: “This is what we did after the Second World War, after the Civil War, after the War of Independence. It may be unpalatable and unsavoury but it is how wars end.”

Rather, the problem is going to be among Sunnites. First of all, there are too many groups involved. And second, too many of them are just not willing to accept their true status within Iraq.

This might work:

Adopting a carrot-and-stick approach, Mr Khalilzad and Mr Talabani have also used the threat of Iranian influence in Iraq to persuade the rebels to come on board.

“I have said to the Sunnis, they complain to me about Iran, but some of the things they are doing in terms of their fight and the insurgency is serving Iranian interests,” Mr Khalilzad said.

----

The Sunni in Iraq are behaving like English in Quebec, Whites in South Africa, Protestants in Ireland and Christians in Lebanon. They are being dragged to face the logical consequence of democracy.

[BHS]

I, for one, am hugely interested to see how this plays out.

Did you read the terms?

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

Seems be something doomed to fail unless there is a major change of attitude in Washington

I'd think the UN approval hurdle isn't really much of a problem, in that the UN doesn't currently have much to say on the issue. I'm imagining that the once the US has approved of a timetable for withdrawl (and assuming that it does approve such a timetable) then getting UN approval will be pretty much a matter of taking the timetable to the Security Council or the General Assembly or the Secretary General's office or whoever and getting them to sign off on it.

So, the biggest hurdle is getting the US to agree to everything. That the American ambassador was involved is a good sign, to start with.

Up until this point, the support for American withdrawl on a timetable has been weak in the US because all of the proposals have been unilateral and have assumed an incomplete and weak government in Iraq. If the Iraqi government show the resolve to formally request a withdrawl and stipulates a timeline, it will give a great deal more weight to the idea in the States.

[August1991]

I'd think the UN approval hurdle isn't really much of a problem, in that the UN doesn't currently have much to say on the issue.

I'd say the UN is entirely irrelevant at this point and use of its name is merely to get support in some countries (Europe/Canada) that mean nothing anyway.

So, the biggest hurdle is getting the US to agree to everything. That the American ambassador was involved is a good sign, to start with.

The US will not be a problem - except maybe where harm to their own troops are involved. Americans take MIA and KIA very seriously. But as the anonymous quote states, wars end that way - some guilty parties go free.

----

The big stumbling block here will be the Sunni militia groups.

Like all dictatorships, Saddam's regime papered over stark sectarian divides in the country. These have come to the surface since his fall. There was never any intermarriage bewteen Kurds and Arabs and there was limited mixing only among teh small number of urban, educated Shiites/Sunnites in Baghdad. Otherwise, the country was culturally divided.

The Sunnites are not willing to accept minority status to Shiites.

Think, for a moment, about all the anti-French vitriol on this forum and Canada is hardly a divided country. Religion no longer matters here. Imagine the US had invaded Canada in 1837 - that's Iraq.

[BHS]

The Sunni in Iraq are behaving like English in Quebec, Whites in South Africa, Protestants in Ireland and Christians in Lebanon. They are being dragged to face the logical consequence of democracy.

This is kind of a dog's breakfast of comparisons, isn't it? The English in Quebec were the masters prior to the quiet revolution, but as far as I know they didn't impose laws to disenfranchise the French. (Correct my ignorance, please.) Meanwhile, the whites in South Africa had democracy among themselves and knew full well what extending democracy to the blacks would entail, which is why it took so long for them to do it. I guess they're similar in that they both represent minority groups that held positions of social superiority which has since been taken away by events in modern times, like the Sunni.

On the otherhand, the Protestants in (independant) Ireland (note: which is neither Northern Ireland nor pre-independance Ireland) and the Christians in Lebanon are minority demographics who presumably have always been under the heel of the majority.

So why are you lumping these two groups together?

[August1991]

This is kind of a dog's breakfast of comparisons, isn't it?

True, but I'm a little bored this afternoon. By offering the comparisons, particularly to Canada, I think it helps in understanding the situation from an Iraqi perspective.

I picked a few notable demographic minorities that "ruled" the roost and then how they coped with a loss of status. Violence isn't always involved - although it was in Ireland and Lebanon. It has taken about 40 years for the English in Quebec to accept that they are a minority.

On this forum, osters usually divide on ideology which can be difficult. Sectarian divides are far worse. In Canada, we know them as English/French divisions but in the past, they were Catholic/Protestant.

The violence in Iraq is largely sectarian and it stems from the Sunni unwillingness to accept their true demographic status.

I think this Amnesty Deal is an indication that the Iraqi (Shiite) government is sufficiently organized to be in a position where it can offer something concrete to the Sunni militia groups. I don't know if the militia groups are ready to accept their position.

The Lebanese Civil War lasted for over 15 years and finally the Christians accepted that they were a minority.

[GostHacked]

It would really seem hypocritical of the U.S. to follow U.N. demands/timelines of withdrawl considering the fact that they essentially said 'screw the UN' and did it on their own. If they all of a sudden just bow to the UNs will then something is seriously afoot. Like a war with Iran.

[Black Dog]

I don't think its too far fetched to see this as a gambit which will allow the U.S. to extracate itself from the mess with some emasure of face. Having the Iraqi government issue the demand for a withdrawl timetable keeps the illussion of an independant Iraqi state alive and well. Of course, the U.S. will remain in Iraq in force.

Aside from that, the deal sounds tantalizing, but ridiculously optimistic.

[Charles Anthony]

Like all dictatorships, Saddam's regime papered over stark sectarian divides in the country. These have come to the surface since his fall.

Sounds like Yugoslavia's dissolution after Tito died.

For true democracy to come to Iraq, it may need to be divided into separate states... ?

Of course, the U.S. will remain in Iraq in force.

In the long run, any foreign presence will always breed a resistence. It may take a very long time, but the U.S. can not stay in Iraq (or any country for that matter) AND have peace in said country.

[Johnny Utah]

From the Times:

THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.

Great news, regardless of your take on the war.

I, for one, am hugely interested to see how this plays out.

If this plays out right all sides will benefit..

[BHS]

It would really seem hypocritical of the U.S. to follow U.N. demands/timelines of withdrawl considering the fact that they essentially said 'screw the UN' and did it on their own. If they all of a sudden just bow to the UNs will then something is seriously afoot. Like a war with Iran.

I don't know if hypocritical is the right word. Again, the likely scenario is going to be the UN agreeing to what the US has already agreed to.

Do you really think the UN is going to approve a war with Iran in any case? If you do, do you think the current American administration believes this? Do you think they believe it enough that they're willing to jump ship in Iraq to lay the groundwork for UN approval?

[BHS]

In the long run, any foreign presence will always breed a resistence. It may take a very long time, but the U.S. can not stay in Iraq (or any country for that matter) AND have peace in said country.

And you base this conclusion on what? The constant guerilla infighting in Germany? The multiple civil wars that Japan experience after WWII? The economic devestation experienced by Seoul following the ceasefire in the early 50's?

[Riverwind]

And you base this conclusion on what? The constant guerilla infighting in Germany? The multiple civil wars that Japan experience after WWII? The economic devestation experienced by Seoul following the ceasefire in the early 50's?

The current political dynamics in the Arab world will make it impossible for American troops and peace to be present in Iraq at the same time.

[BHS]

And you base this conclusion on what? The constant guerilla infighting in Germany? The multiple civil wars that Japan experience after WWII? The economic devestation experienced by Seoul following the ceasefire in the early 50's?

The current political dynamics in the Arab world will make it impossible for American troops and peace to be present in Iraq at the same time.

Was there peace before the current intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan? (I include the latter due to both it's proximity to the Middle East in both geography and the American mindset.) There were American forces based in the Middle East between 1990 and 2003. Was that an era of peace, or do you consider that a low intensity war?

In any case, you've qualified your statement in a way that makes it different from the statement I was replying to, in that Charles was stating that peace would never be possible so long as Americans were present, and you are limiting your statement to current events without regard for the long term future. So, do you agree with Charles that peace will never be possible so long as there is an American military presense?

[Riverwind]

So, do you agree with Charles that peace will never be possible so long as there is an American military presense?

Iraq and Afganistan are different places. Many in the Arab world see the American invasion of Iraq as an unjustified war of aggression. Keeping US troops in Iraq is a provocation and will confirm what many in the Arab world already believe: that the US invaded Iraq to control Iraq oil. A complete troop pull out is the only way to counter that perception.

The political situation in post war Japan and Germany was completely different. In those cases, the people knew that that their countries started a war and that foreign occupiers were the price they had to pay for that. In South Korea, the US troops were the only thing keeping the Communists at bay.

[Charles Anthony]

I should be more precise.

I was replying to, in that Charles was stating that peace would never be possible so long as Americans were present, and you are limiting your statement to current events without regard for the long term future. So, do you agree with Charles that peace will never be possible so long as there is an American military presense?

I make my statement based on a few major differences compared to the other situations from half a century ago that you identified.

This American military presense in Iraq and in Afghanistan

- does not have much international support;

- motivated by very questionable (if not confusing) pretenses

I believe that the American military was not justified in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and I believe that I am not alone in this belief.

Was there peace before the current intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan? (I include the latter due to both it's proximity to the Middle East in both geography and the American mindset.) There were American forces based in the Middle East between 1990 and 2003. Was that an era of peace, or do you consider that a low intensity war?

I would say low intensity war. I believe that it is specifically that presence which contributed to the animosity that provoked the various attacks upon Americans throughout the world culminating ultimately to the demolition of three buildings of the World Trade Center.

[August1991]

I believe that it is specifically that presence which contributed to the animosity that provoked the various attacks upon Americans throughout the world culminating ultimately to the demolition of three buildings of the World Trade Center.

That is tantamount to claiming the woman's short skirt provoked the rape.

I don't think its too far fetched to see this as a gambit which will allow the U.S. to extracate itself from the mess with some emasure of face. Having the Iraqi government issue the demand for a withdrawl timetable keeps the illussion of an independant Iraqi state alive and well.

It is sad that you see this from the US perspective, and not how the Iraqis see it. It leads me to the the conclusion that the Left really is anti-American (or more exactly, obsessively sympathetic to any oppressed victim) and nothing else.

Through most of its history, Canada has suffered from majority/minority divisions. We have had to bridge this divide on numerous occasions. Black Dog, why can't you see this Iraqi Amnesty Deal in a similar light. Instead, you see it as all about a "US troop withdrawal", "Bush saving face" and so on. Some Iraqis are trying to put together a Meech Lake-type deal while other Iraqis are claiming that it's a sell-out or a capitulation. All Canadians can understand this. And from their perspective, so can Iraqis. To them, it's the main issue. It's their country for gawdsakes.

It would really seem hypocritical of the U.S. to follow U.N. demands/timelines of withdrawl considering the fact that they essentially said 'screw the UN' and did it on their own. If they all of a sudden just bow to the UNs will then something is seriously afoot. Like a war with Iran.

GostHacked, you do the same as BD above. You unfortunately see this solely from the US perspective.

If you'd been a foreign journalist in Canada in 1995, your entire report would be about how the Clinton Administration is secretly supporting the federalists and how the US will react to a sovereign Quebec. IOW, you see all the white keys on the piano but you can't see the black ones.

[August1991]

Keeping US troops in Iraq is a provocation and will confirm what many in the Arab world already believe: that the US invaded Iraq to control Iraq oil. A complete troop pull out is the only way to counter that perception.

BD raised that point above by stating that this Amnesty Deal would still leave a US military presence in Iraq.

I'm not so certain.

The Left has shifted its ground on explaining why Bush went to war in Iraq. Oil, pipelines, hegemony, sheer madness. The latest Leftist idea is that Bush wants military bases in the middle of the Middle East. (Kuwait would grant them but I'll let that rebuttal slide... )

----

One of Bin Laden's bugbears was US troops in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, getting US troops into Saudi Arabia in 1990 (after Saddam's invasion of Iraq) posed numerous problems. Saudi Arabia is the Land of the Two Holy Cities. There is no Christian cross visible anywhere in Saudi Arabia - a Bible would be confiscated. To fundamentalist Muslims, the idea of an area with Christians on Saudi territory doing things no one knows about is offensive. It's like a Muslim rolling out a mat and kneeling to pray in St-Peter's, or something.

After September 2001, Bush removed all US military bases from Saudi Arabia.

Iraq is another story since it's just another country. The Soviets had military bases in Egypt. So, I'm not so certain that any ordinary person would really object to US military airfields in the western Iraqi desert (believe me, there's nothing there). Such US bases wouldn't be perceived as an "occupation" in the same way, say, Jerusalem is perceived as occupied. And given modern technology, I wonder whether the US military would even want to have the bases.

OTOH, from the Iraqi perspective I suspect, getting US troops out of cities is the main pre-occupation. (To make a Canadian comparison which I have tried in this thread for better or worse, imagine the FLQ crisis and Trudeau's troops in front of Cegeps.) US road blocks and searches, their helicopters and planes, are a problem. Out in the desert? Who cares.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The Left has shifted its ground on explaining why Bush went to war in Iraq. Oil, pipelines, hegemony, sheer madness. The latest Leftist idea is that Bush wants military bases in the middle of the Middle East.

You give the impression that you believe that that these thing are unrelated to each other. (Apart from the madness bit, I don't believe Bush has 'gone mad')About the some 14 'enduring bases' the US is working on, this isn't the 'latest', as it is 'old news'.

from...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac.../iraq-intro.htm

Initially referred to as "enduring bases" in 2004, these four bases were redesignated as "Contingency Operating Bases" in February 2005. The consolidation plan entails construction of long-lasting facilities, such as barracks and offices built of concrete blocks, rather than the metal trailers and buildings that are found at the larger US bases. The buildings are designed to withstand direct mortar strikes. Initial funding was provided in the $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill approved by Congress in May 2005.

The longer term plan for US Central Command calls for "strategic overwatch" from bases in Kuwait.

Further, though Kuwait may grant some presence in their country, don't forget that they are a hard-line Islamic country themselves. They, and other countries, were very apprehensive at the notion of being seen as 'being co-operative'[sic] with the US in the first 'Gulf War'.

So, I'm not so certain that any ordinary person would really object to US military airfields in the western Iraqi desert

If the Americans or Russians were to try to establish large, permanent military bases in Quebec, would you prefer them to be inside, or on the outskirts of Montreal? Or would you rather not have them at all?

[Black Dog]

It is sad that you see this from the US perspective, and not how the Iraqis see it. It leads me to the the conclusion that the Left really is anti-American (or more exactly, obsessively sympathetic to any oppressed victim) and nothing else.

Damn. Too bad it's really hard to find an animated gif of the wanker sign, because that would be puuuurfect.

Through most of its history, Canada has suffered from majority/minority divisions. We have had to bridge this divide on numerous occasions. Black Dog, why can't you see this Iraqi Amnesty Deal in a similar light. Instead, you see it as all about a "US troop withdrawal", "Bush saving face" and so on. Some Iraqis are trying to put together a Meech Lake-type deal while other Iraqis are claiming that it's a sell-out or a capitulation. All Canadians can understand this. And from their perspective, so can Iraqis. To them, it's the main issue. It's their country for gawdsakes.

Well Canada's never been occupied by a foreign government with a vested interest in forcing the different factions to get together. I've no doubt Iraqis want to make a deal that works. But that doesn't close off the possibility that the U.S. has it's own agenda.

BD raised that point above by stating that this Amnesty Deal would still leave a US military presence in Iraq.

I'm not so certain.

The Left has shifted its ground on explaining why Bush went to war in Iraq. Oil, pipelines, hegemony, sheer madness. The latest Leftist idea is that Bush wants military bases in the middle of the Middle East. (Kuwait would grant them but I'll let that rebuttal slide... )

Hardly a new idea (I think you're betraying your ignorance of the real arguments against the war: you perfer the cartoon versions), but a central part of the oil thesis. You can't control access to the oil supply with no one around to enforce it after all.

Iraq is another story since it's just another country. The Soviets had military bases in Egypt. So, I'm not so certain that any ordinary person would really object to US military airfields in the western Iraqi desert (believe me, there's nothing there). Such US bases wouldn't be perceived as an "occupation" in the same way, say, Jerusalem is perceived as occupied. And given modern technology, I wonder whether the US military would even want to have the bases.

Guess syou missed the part about the giant fortified U.S. embassy that is being built in the heart of Baghdad (I guess the irony of running the embassy out of Ssaddam's old palace finally hit them).

[August1991]

Insurgents are demanding the withdrawal of all U.S. and British forces from Iraq within two years as a condition for joining reconciliation talks, a senior Iraqi government official said Wednesday.

...

Iraqi government officials involved with the contacts with insurgents told The Associated Press that several militant groups sent delegates from their regions and tribes to speak on their behalf.

One of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of demands for secrecy in the talks, said the insurgents have so far rejected face-to-face talks, saying they fear being targeted by Shiite militias, Iraqi security forces and the Americans.

The official said the insurgents have demanded a two-year "timetable for withdrawal" in return for joining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's bid for national reconciliation.

AP

Hardly a new idea (I think you're betraying your ignorance of the real arguments against the war: you perfer the cartoon versions), but a central part of the oil thesis. You can't control access to the oil supply with no one around to enforce it after all.

There is a world market in oil. Oil is fungible, as they say. I suppose you could argue that Americans didn't want to pay Saddam for the oil. Except even that would be false since most if not all of Middle East oil goes to Asia (Japan) and Europe.

Guess syou missed the part about the giant fortified U.S. embassy that is being built in the heart of Baghdad (I guess the irony of running the embassy out of Ssaddam's old palace finally hit them).

American Embassies around the world are fortified. They are targets.

If the Americans or Russians were to try to establish large, permanent military bases in Quebec, would you prefer them to be inside, or on the outskirts of Montreal? Or would you rather not have them at all?

There was a US (NATO) base for many years in Goose Bay Labrador and I believe the US uses Cold Lake in Alberta. I would have no problem whatsoever with a US military base in Canada.

The US provides military protection to Iceland and the Icelanders are unhappy about a possible US withdrawal:

The United States spends about $260 million annually as part of an agreement to help provide for Iceland's defense, but officials in Iceland had been negotiating to pay the bulk of the costs if the U.S. military stayed.

"We are deeply disappointed over this decision," said Helgi Agustsson, Iceland's ambassador to the United States, who said he thought negotiations were going well before Washington abruptly told officials in Reykjavik of the plan to withdraw. "We have a defense agreement with the U.S., and with the withdrawal of the fighter aircraft, it raises the question of credible authority. Iceland has no military forces."

Washington Post

If it's good enough for Iceland, it's good enough for me.

----

BD, I just don't think the US is an Evil Empire. The US government doesn't colonize countries or exact tribute from subject peoples. The best evidence of my point is Canada itself. Americans have left us alone to solve our problems our own way. If the US was in Empire Building Mode, it seems odd that it would start half way round the world.

I liked John Howard's comment when he was in Ottawa:

"For those around the world who would want to see a reduced American role in the affairs of our globe, I have some quiet advice. That is, be careful of what you wish for. Because a retreating America will leave a more vulnerable world."

Link

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I suppose you could argue that Americans didn't want to pay Saddam for the oil. Except even that would be false since most if not all of Middle East oil goes to Asia (Japan) and Europe.

In the few months before 'Gulf II', something like 50% of Iraq oil sales were to the US (to build up their strategic reserves). The US had no problems writing them a cheque for it, although they probably wouldn't have felt obligated to honour it.

There was a US (NATO) base for many years in Goose Bay Labrador and I believe the US uses Cold Lake in Alberta. I would have no problem whatsoever with a US military base in Canada.

Yes, perhaps in this case the US was a bad example. I should have used 'Iran or North Korea, or even China.'

The US provides military protection to Iceland and the Icelanders are unhappy about a possible US withdrawal:

I doubt that Iceland is worried about their safety as much as they are worried about the lost of income fom military contracts, and the 'trickle-down' monies from those employed there.

Because a retreating America will leave a more vulnerable world."

A bit of 'fear-mongering' here, when the word 'freer' could be substituted for 'vulnerable'. Like telling your kidnap victim "The world is a scary place, and you would be sure to get raped if I let you go free. Better just to stay here and forget this silly 'freedom' notion".

[Black Dog]

There is a world market in oil. Oil is fungible, as they say. I suppose you could argue that Americans didn't want to pay Saddam for the oil. Except even that would be false since most if not all of Middle East oil goes to Asia (Japan) and Europe.

Depends on what Americans we're talking about (hint, it's not Joe Sixpack.)

There was a US (NATO) base for many years in Goose Bay Labrador and I believe the US uses Cold Lake in Alberta. I would have no problem whatsoever with a US military base in Canada.

The US provides military protection to Iceland and the Icelanders are unhappy about a possible US withdrawal:

I can't help notice something missing from such comparisons. The U.S. did not invade and occupy Canada or Iceland. Their prescence in post WWII Germany and Japan was a necesary step in the reconstruction process after a destructive war started by the occupied nations (not to mention Cold War geopolitics). Iraq is a different story.

It's funny that you shrug off the idea of a permenant military prescence in Iraq when posite dby a left-leaning poster even whil a right-wing comentator on this board (BHS?) has put forward the theory that Iraq was invaded in part to give the U.S a jumping off point in the region. What's your opinion on that theory?