Iran versus Iraq/the Iraqi government’s peace offer to the Sunnis
Wretchard at the Belmont Club examines GEN Casey’s decision to highlight Iran’s role in the Iraqi insurgency. He also notes a new “peace feeler” (including an amnesty offer) from the Iraqi government to the Sunni holdouts. This is part of the “national reconciliation” program Prime Minister al-Maliki mentioned two weeks ago. Wretchard notes GEN Casey said the Sunni insurgents were “reaching out” (to the Iraqi government)– and he reads that as a hint that a new political agreement (or arrangement) between the government and Sunni holdouts is under serious consideration.
Wretchard draws three conclusions in his commentary– and I agree with them.
Here are those conclusions:
- The internally organized insurgency (al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency) is decline. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is hurt and perhaps dying; the Sunnis are looking to throw in the towel.
- Criminal gangs and ethnic militias are the rising threat. But Casey does not appear all that worried. “And if you look at where the sectarian violence is occurring, it’s occurring within about a 30-mile — 90 percent of it is occurring in about a 30- mile radius around Baghdad“
- Something happened “since the December elections and in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing” that made the security situation “more complex”. And that something appears to be the increasing role of Iran using the Lebanese Hezbollah and Qods to direct and support “a wide variety of groups across southern Iraq”.
Long before Samarra, Iranian agents were active in southern Iraq. But the Samarra mosque bombing gave them a bloody religious and political cause celebre.
Here is additional background: former Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi discussed amnesty proposals in the summer of 2004. Allawi emphasized that murderers would not receive amnesty, but he argued that the Iraqi war had to end with a new political settlement. I also recall Allawi saying he was once a Baathist and that Iraqis who had once belonged to the Baath Party must be brought into the political process; that meant reconciliation and some type of amnesty. (Note the London Times report linked says the reconciliation plan contains a ”review of the process of de-Baathification and of financial compensation to sacked civil servants from the Saddam regime.”
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Maliki’s new plan “excludes those who attacked the US.”
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s new plan to promote reconciliation among Iraq’s rival factions will offer amnesty to Iraqis who have carried weapons but not to those who have committed serious crimes, according to Iraqi politicians who have read the proposal.
The plan is the first formal initiative by al-Maliki’s Shiite Muslim-led government to reach out to insurgents and create a political dialogue among factions. It has gone through several revisions, and the specifics are expected to be discussed in parliament on Sunday.
Maliki’s amnesty looks very similar to the program Allawi wanted to implement. The difference is Maliki has the political power of a democratically-elected national unity government behind him. The Sunnis holdouts have also suffered another two years of defeat. The old Sunni line in Iraq was “the Shia are sheep.” The Saddamists running the Sunni insurgency thought they could terrorize the Shia into submission. They also banked on “the Vietnam syndrome” to get the US to leave– set off bombs, rely on the global media to magnify the bombs, and slowly erode US national will.
Iran In Iraq… Austin Bay has a post up that's worth reading. It's analyzing some conclusions that Wretchard over at the Belmont Club reached about the amnesty plan being considered by Iraq to end the Sunni-led violence. It also examines Iran's …
Trackback by Blue Crab Boulevard — 6/23/2006 @ 8:21 am
I like the Iraqi plan to reach out in this manner to their Sunnis and Baathists. It shows a lot of wisdom and thinking outside the box, certainly the ability to look past the present and the normal need for payback and retribution from their enemies. No, I’m not real excited about insurgents who engaged and killed US servicemen getting off the hook, but haven’t we accepted similar programs in all our past wars? Did we kill or imprison all the German or Japanese soldiers that attacked us, or did we only go after some of the highest ranking soldiers? I think it will be an excellent learning situation for the Iraqis, too, as they determine how to best separate those to be held accountable from the rest. Remember, our plan is to leave, and the Iraqis will be doing all of this (democracy, judicial system, etc.) on their own very soon. We either start trusting them with the keys to their own country or we don’t. We can’t merely impose our own preferences and methods on them and expect them to jump into the driver’s seat without any problems when we leave. As with our own children, we have to let them take on responsibility and learn from mistakes (hopefully, small mistakes). So far, I like what I see, especially for a middle eastern country. In this regard, I am more than favorably impressed with Iraq. I’ve been supportive of our decision to enter Iraq from day one, but I also expected nothing but problems in the aftermath, and that was acceptable to me given the problems we would be facing had we not gone in. My time in the area decades ago left me with some definite concerns about middle easterners ability to live and function in the modern world. Fortunately, today’s Iraqi leaders are surpassing my expectations, and rather well at that.
Comment by E. T. Page — 6/23/2006 @ 9:57 am
The Iraqi people win … PEACE … when the the Sunni leaders stop fighting = surrender. Carrots and sticks — the two incentives. The Sunnis have been getting beaten, probably worse than they expected; an amnesty is good to get them to stop fighting. I think there should be more focus on the houses, and the owners of the houses, where terrorists are staying. Perhaps even the tribal leaders of the owners — if such tribal leaders start losing their own houses for the crime of not reporting terrorists, this would be an increase in the stick pressure, as well. As the Shia death squads get more active and successful at murdering Sunnis, supported by Iran or not, the Sunnis will see they are only losing more. Their deal is likely only to get worse, and even tribal leaders will soon be in physical danger (if not already; there is far too little info about the Iraqi folk being killed in MSM & the blogosphere.) In any amnesty, lots of “guilty” folk will go unpunished. It’s worth it to save innocent lives. That’s part of the price to pay to stop the killing of the innocent who would otherwise die with more fighting & terrorism if there is no amnesty. Like E.T. Page said — we’ve given the Iraqis the keys, if they choose to give amnesty to murderers of US soldiers, or not, it’s their choice.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 6/23/2006 @ 10:17 am
Iran versus Iraq/the Iraqi government’s peace offer to the Sunnis… Courtesy of Austin Bay: Wretchard at the Belmont Club examines GEN Casey’s decision to highlight Iran’s role in the Iraqi insurgency. He also notes a new “peace feeler†(including an amnesty offer) from the Iraqi government to the Sunni holdo…
Trackback by NoisyRoom.net — 6/23/2006 @ 3:36 pm