Iraqi Baathist Exit Strategy: Turn in Zarqawi
The Internet is suddenly rife with reports that Iraq?s pro-Saddam holdouts seek an ?exit strategy? ? a deal to put down their arms, enter the political system, and not go to jail. (Link is to the Financial Times article: “Iraq’s insurgents ?seek exit strategy’ “.)
From July 2004 forward part of Iyad Allawi?s plan was to ?add not subtract? Iraqis. The Interim Iraqi Government wanted to bring Sunni Triangle holdouts into the political process. The door to was open to discussion with all but the most senior members of the Baath leadership. The IIG insisted, however, that murderers wouldn?t go unpunished?which admittedly adds an uncomfortable rub.
The holdouts have always had two hole cards. The first is agreeing to quit fighting. This meant submitting to the democratic judicial process, but turning in your arms and asking for amnesty would lay the groundwork for a ?deal with the prosecutor.?
The second card is turning in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Al Qaeda internationalists..Fact is, turning in Zarqawi would be the Baghdad equivalent of Monopoly?s ?Get Out of Jail Free Card? for the lower-level holdouts who engineer it.
The Saddamites who turn in Zarqawi would give the Iraqi government a tactical military victory ?the terrorist kingpin is off the streets– and a major political victory. Sunni Muslims turning in the Islamist terrorist would be another strategic coup for the United States.
Here’s a quick sample of the Financial Times report. I’dd add that members of the Interim iraqi Government and the Coalition forces have been in contact with various holdout groups since July 2004.:
Many of Iraq’s predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq’s main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba’ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
?Firstly, they want to ensure their own security,? says Sharif Ali, who last week hosted a pan-Sunni conference attended by tribal sheikhs and other local leaders speaking on behalf of the insurgents.
If Sunni insurgents were to turn al-Zarqawi in, the consequences for al Qaeda would be more ominous than if Zal-Zarqawi’s defeat occurred on the battlefield contending with American or Iraqi soldiers. This is because al Qaeda would know that it could not count on even passionately anti-American Sunni Muslims, who otherwise might be expected to form the core of al Qaeda’s further recruitment efforts. This realization would make it almost impossible for al Qaeda to build its organization, or even trust affiliated organizations. In addition, the example of Sunnis rejecting al Qaeda would presumably resonate within al Qaeda’s pool of prospective recruits — not only will al Qaeda not be able to trust those recruits, but those recruits will no longer be able to trust other Sunni Arabs that they had thought were sympathetic. Any former friend might become an enemy. This risk alone should diminish the willinesness of the young radicals to throw in their lot with al Qaeda.
Comment by TigerHawk — 3/26/2005 @ 10:58 am
Back to Iraq Hmmmmm… You know… it’s a good thing that Kerry and his dem comrades didn’t get the reigns of our foreign policy. And it’s a GREAT thing that Bush doesn’t listen to the NYTimes when deciding his foreign policy (something that drives the Times’ staff nutty!). Months ago, they were all calling for the elections to be delayed, until better security could be achieved throughout the country. As has happened so many times before, Bush has been proven right yet again. It appears that the vote itself has resulted in improved security and many of the “dead-enders” of the former regime realize that the future of Iraq (and their future in it) isn’t necessarily a dead end. This demoralizing blow to the Iraqi insurgents further isolates the foreign insurgents (aka Al Qaeda). I wonder if Michael Moore would call these foreign jihadists “minutemen” again? I have a feeling that I know the answer, but I hope I’m wrong…
Comment by Another Rovian Conspiracy: St Wendeler — 3/26/2005 @ 1:15 pm
Fascinating post. I’d link but Glenn’s got you already. If I knew Arabic, I’d love to be a fly on the wall for those discusssions.
Comment by Roger L . Simon — 3/26/2005 @ 1:28 pm
I suspect that Zarqawi has a hard core of protection around him, and that he is little susceptible to being turned in…unless some of the recent clashes which have been elliminating his fellow terrorists by the bunch…have left him low on protection. Then he might turn to some locals who are showing more and more they are not supporting nor condoning the terrorist activities. I hope the 2nd option is true, and that he is soon caught. Duke of DeLand
Comment by Duke of DeLand — 3/26/2005 @ 1:30 pm
I find it interesting that the baathists would be worrying about their own security as the article above states. The irony is that the quickest obvious way for them to secure their own security is to JOIN THE IRAQI ARMED FORCES! For the Sunnis to permit an armed force comprised only of Shiite and Kurds is not in their best interests. A mixed force of all three sects will less likely to do harm to any sect. For no mixed platoon, without provication, would be willing to engage the civilian population since some in the force would be their brothers and sisters. A tempering influence indeed.
Comment by JohnM — 3/26/2005 @ 1:46 pm
“unless some of the recent clashes which have been elliminating his fellow terrorists by the bunch…have left him low on protection.” I’d bet he would try to flee Iraq if that were in-fact the case, as he did before the Battle of Fallujah. Killing or preferable catching him would be nearly as big as Saddam at this point, in my opinion. We could really talk about a tipping point then.
Comment by Greg K — 3/26/2005 @ 1:59 pm
Just a hunch, but the recent precipitous decline in attacks tells me that Zarqawi is not in Iraq any more. Top four most likely new residences: (1) Jordan - being hidden by family; (2) Saudi Arabia - working with the Wahabis; (3) Syria - a dangerous spot for him right now, but it has a Sunni majority and no U.S. (conventional) forces; and (4) Iran - making common cause with the Shi’ite enemy. Wherever he is, he’ll try to take up Osama’s challenge to strike inside the U.S.
Comment by Eric Johnson — 3/26/2005 @ 3:20 pm
I don’t doubt that Zarkawi himself has a trusted protection force that would be very hard to penetrate. Those guy won’t be the ones that turn him in. His risk comes from that fact that the protection force itself, unless very small, can attract notice in an of itself. All it takes is a tipoff from neighbors who wonder about the comings and goings in a certain house, and why are the windows always closed?
Comment by Hunter McDaniel — 3/26/2005 @ 3:45 pm
St. Wendeler, No, I think Moore and the Left have moved on to the same argument they used after Reagan proved them wrong by winning the Cold War: it would have happened anyway, and it happened in spite of our policies not because of them (watch how many times they claim Al-Sistani is the real reason Iraq is a democracy, not George W Bush). Remember, Carter and Gorbachev got the Nobel Peace Prizes, not Reagan.
Comment by TallDave — 3/26/2005 @ 3:47 pm
I’m with Eric Johnson…if Zarqawi is still in Iraq, he will leave as soon as he realizes that the gig’s up. These terrorist “icons” realize that they have more value on the lam than as martyrs.
Comment by gwhizkids — 3/26/2005 @ 3:50 pm
Eric, that can’t be! Zarqawi is too heroic to cut and run! /sarcasm
Comment by freakboy — 3/26/2005 @ 5:20 pm
Zarqawi is turning out to be quite a prophet; he worried in his famous letter that successful elections would make it all to clear to the Iraqis who the real targets were. And they now seem to. I doubt Z is exposed much to Sunnis, but is layered around with foreign recruits and henchmen. Of course, some local collaborators must know something about his movements and whereabouts from time to time. But just like SH went to a random selection out of his dozens of residences every night, I doubt many have advance notice of his movements.
Comment by Brian H — 3/26/2005 @ 8:38 pm
**all too clear**
Comment by Brian H — 3/26/2005 @ 8:39 pm
John: If you read the MSM you would know that there are Sunnis in the regular army. You would also know that one of the more significant developments is the “pop ups,” they can’t be referred to militias because militias are illegal. Many of these are better armed and better trained than the regular military, the best tend to be Sunni. Most have ties to some important power player or tribe.
Comment by lize connors — 3/26/2005 @ 8:49 pm
Mr Bay: Why would they need to ask for amnesty or disarm? We had an arrest warrant for Mr. Sadr a year ago, he killed a number of our troops. Now he has followers who were elected, he retains a militia and we are pumping all kinds of aid into his strongholds. Meanwhile his thugs terrorize women who are not veiled or who associate with men.
Comment by lize connors — 3/26/2005 @ 8:52 pm
Too good to be true, liberals would be slitting their wrists. Also too good to be true.
Comment by John T — 3/26/2005 @ 9:02 pm
From the March 20 NY Times: In Baghdad, several dozen leaders of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs gathered on Saturday to discuss their participation in the government and the writing of a constitution. The Sunnis, a powerful minority who formed Iraq’s ruling class under Mr. Hussein, largely boycotted the elections. The conference was organized by Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, the leader of the Constitutional Monarchy Party. In his opening address, he urged Iraq’s Sunnis - who form the core of the insurgency here - to become part of the new government. But as the conference went on, it became a virtual rally for the insurgency, with tribal sheiks and clerics alike speaking scornfully about the government and constitution. Again and again, the speakers praised the resistance, and drew loud applause from the audience gathered in the auditorium of the Babylon Hotel.
Comment by whats4lunch — 3/26/2005 @ 9:56 pm
[ In Baghdad, several dozen leaders of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs gathered on Saturday to discuss their participation in the government and the writing of a constitution. … But as the conference went on, it became a virtual rally for the insurgency, with tribal sheiks and clerics alike speaking scornfully about the government and constitution. Again and again, the speakers praised the resistance, and drew loud applause from the audience gathered in the auditorium of the Babylon Hotel ] That seems a lot like the third act of the movie “Lawrence of Arabia.” But as the conference went on, it became a virtual rally for the insurgency, with tribal sheiks and clerics alike speaking scornfully about the government and constitution. …
Comment by David Davenport — 3/27/2005 @ 6:57 am
Paxil
Comment by Paxil — 4/19/2005 @ 1:33 pm
Zyban
Comment by Zyban — 4/28/2005 @ 3:20 pm
Your blog was great! The time spent reading it was well spent! There should be more people like you that write interesting blogs! You’ve done a great job so I tell you to keep up the good job! acne
Comment by acne — 5/7/2005 @ 4:05 pm
[…] So here’s an FT link on Sunni overtures re turning on Zarqawi and his henchmen. (Via Austin Bay via Instapundit.) Posted by Jim Henley @ 9:25 pm, Filed under: Main […]
Pingback by Peace Movement § Unqualified Offerings — 6/29/2005 @ 9:45 pm