I don’t like it any more than you do.
The prospect of granting a limited amnesty in Iraq – especially to those Iraqis who participated in attacks on Americans – sticks in my craw. I believe that amnesty would cheapen the sacrifice made by the more than 2,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq and would be a slap in the face to the families of the fallen.
But all things considered, it may be the price of a full, unqualified victory in Iraq – a stable democratic government that promises full political participation for all Iraqis and that would be an example to follow for the rest of the autocratic Middle East.
This was the goal when we initiated the overthrow of Saddam. And achieving that goal would hearten democrats in the entire Muslim world while striking a huge blow at al Qaeda and their brothers in terror across the Middle East.
Details of what the amnesty program might look like are sketchy:
Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those “who weren’t involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood,” Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. “Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity.”Maliki stressed that he had not yet met with the Sunni resistance and added, “We will talk to those whose hands are not stained with blood, and we hope they would rethink their strategy.” He vowed that they “will not be able to interrupt the political process, either by wanting to bring back the old regime, or imposing an ugly, ethnic new regime upon Iraq.”
As Maliki spoke, Iraqi soldiers and police led the first day of a security crackdown in Baghdad. A force of more than 30,000 uniformed Iraqi security personnel, backed by more than 30,000 U.S.-led foreign troops, enforced the first day of a dusk-to-dawn curfew and stepped up checkpoints throughout the capital. Iraq’s Interior Ministry said Tuesday that no additional troops were brought in for the operation.
This kind of “National Reconciliation” was utilized in South Africa with some success, although many observers believed at the time that granting amnesty to street thugs who murdered for political reasons would lead to continued lawlessness. Judging by the crime rate in Johannesburg and other municipalities in the immediate aftermath of the work done by the reconciliation councils, there may be some justification for that belief.
Prime Minister Maliki has yet to decide exactly who would be eligible and how the program would work:
The Arab League on Wednesday postponed a reconciliation conference for Iraq that had been set for August. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to Maliki, said the conference was delayed in part so Iraq could decide who might be eligible for any amnesty. It was not clear how the government would verify which insurgents have been responsible for which types of attacks.“The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation, and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty, but not a sort of unconditional amnesty,” Kadhimi said in a telephone interview. “We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will be pardoned.”
[snip]
Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: “That’s an area where we can see a green line. There’s some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I,” the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, “that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe.”
In the past, US military authorities were opposed to amnesty. However, at this point in the history of the new Iraqi government, they very well might not have much to say about the matter. While Maliki has shown a willingness to work with both the civilian and military representatives of the United States, he has also shown a stubborn resistance to being rushed into doing something he doesn’t wish to do. One only needs to look at the cabinet crisis that was recently resolved when Maliki named his national security team. American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad pleaded, cajoled, and wheedled Maliki for weeks, begging him to get off the mark and name a full cabinet only to have Maliki demur until he had negotiated for the people he wanted.
Where the previous prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jafari, sometimes appeared to lean too heavily on the Americans for guidance, Maliki seems to be making an effort to strike out on his own. This is certainly a welcome development and bodes well for the immediate future. In fact, some Iraqis are quite optimistic:
Maliki’s statements come as there is growing openness to dialogue on all sides of Iraq’s ethnic and religious divides. [President] Talabani told reporters at a news conference in the Kurdish north last weekend that he believed 2006 might be the year of peace settlements for Iraq.Similarly, the top Sunni Arab in Iraq’s new government said this week that he believed a peace deal was “very close.” Salam al-Zobaie, the deputy prime minister, said in an interview in his Baghdad office this week that the difference this time was that the new Shiite-led government was indicating openness to compromise.
Meanwhile, a couple of other steps taken by the new government may go a long way toward helping the grim security situation in the capital. There are now 60,000 armed men – 7,200 Americans – patrolling the streets of Baghdad enforcing a curfew while cracking down on the criminal gangs that are responsible for much of the violence and lawlessness that has rocked the city:
Iraqi troops Wednesday uncovered a kidnapping ring, seized weapons—including three rockets—and defused two roadside bombs after beginning a security clampdown on the often lawless streets of Baghdad.In the first day of the new government’s push to restore order in the capital, Iraqi troops also enforced a curfew from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and issued a weapons ban for civilians.
Four insurgents were detained at one checkpoint after three people emerged from a car “screaming for help,” said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.
“We found eight people that had been kidnapped now for four days that we were able to return back under control of the Iraqi government,” Caldwell said. “They worked for an electrical company down south of Baghdad.”
Certainly the Iraqi PM seems to be making the right moves. It is now up to his government to gain control of the security situation and begin the long, difficult process of uniting the Iraqis in order to bring peace to that blood soaked land.
7:18 am
Rick,
You’re enough of an historian to remember certain “not so prominent” Nazis in US employ post WWII. Nuff said.
7:27 am
Rick,
I know I’ll catch hell for stating this, but here goes…
The Iraqi government must distinguish between Iraqi “insurgents” fighting Americans and the foreign terrorists trying to make Iraq into another Afghanistan.
Whatever the motives are for the Iraqis to fight Americans, any objective observer can conclude that people are inherently entitled to defend their homeland against foreign invaders. The Iraqi fighters who have used abominable tactics and have intentionally targeted Iraqi civilians must be dealt with in whatever manner the Iraqi government sees fit. But I don’t think it’s our prerogative to compel the Iraqis to try and punish their own citizens for fighting Americans.
On the other hand, we can only hope whatever justice the Iraqi government chooses to mete out to the foreign terrorists will be swift and brutal (such as a rope and a tree). We must insist that these predators not be granted amnesty simply because it will a)impart legitimacy to the notion that Muslims have the right to murder “infidels” whenever and wherever they feel like it and b) encourage them and/or their successors to employ the same kinds of tactics in the next war.
7:37 am
Rat:
You’re right…but we used those nazis to help us in the cold war and the space race.
Sirius:
I think you’re spot on and I think Maliki is thinking the same thing, although he apparently will draw the line at insurgents (not terrorists) who deliberately targeted civilians.
8:42 am
[...] Including insurgents who’ve attacked American soldiers. Moran makes the case, reluctantly, for why he should. [...]
8:58 am
[...] At RightWing NutHouse, Rick Moran doesn’t like it, but […] all things considered, it may be the price of a full, unqualified victory in Iraq – a stable democratic government that promises full political participation for all Iraqis and that would be an example to follow for the rest of the autocratic Middle East. [...]
9:03 am
It was always clear to me that hating Americans might be the alternative to hating one another in Iraq. But given the fact that Saddam is not immortal, Iraq was a powder keg destined to blow at some point. Being the scapegoat for yet another country (or at least elements of it) is the price we have to pay to achieve some measure of decent government and stability in Iraq. Many Germans are still blaming us for all the problems of the world, but at least they aren’t threatening us with nukes or chemical warfare. Just hold your nose.
9:42 am
For Maliki to succeed in his capacity as the leader of his nation, he has to show that he is independent and not beholding to anyone. It is possible that to accomplish this and, at the same time, heal a nation bloody from the sectarian strife of the last two years creates a dilemma that only through amnesty can he possibly succeed.
I want justice for all of the American blood shed on that ground. But maybe the justice we all crave is to really be found in an independent, free and democratic Iraq. An Iraq that has the ability and wherewithal to stand up for itself against anything an organization like Al Quaeda may throw at it. An Iraq that can stand on its own against the Mullahs of Iran. And isn’t this the real prize we have suffered so much to attain? An Iraq like that may be the path to that justice. If that be the case, then I am for it.
9:57 am
I recognize that this is a different type of war, but as much as we did not hold accountable every last Japanese and German soldier for the deaths of Americans in WWII, we must also forego such accountability in Iraq. IMO, it does not in any way diminish the sacrifice our of our military in Iraq, any more than it did with the armisitices of WWII.
I do agree that that the foreign terrorists should not be included in any amnesty if possible. Not only for the reasons stated above, but also because merely deporting those terrorists allows them to continue their anti-democratic jihad in other nations.
10:54 am
This may have some positive results, but I doubt it will change much for the hard core of the insurgency (those who are not in prison). If you are willing to blow up yourself and/or your fellow country men an offer of amnesty isn’t going to change your mind.
10:58 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House Iraq Letter Zarqawi Filed in: The Iraqi War | No Comments » [...]
11:01 am
Um, if we grant amnesty to the insurgents then our victory, by definition, becomes a qualified victory.
11:08 am
It Is All About Perspective – It Is Beginning of the End of Al Qaeda in Iraq
Perspective makes all the difference when reporting on the war against terror. From a simple missing headline, like It Is Beginning of the End of Al Qaeda in Iraq to the small editorial comments that are interspersed throughout reports of the news as r…
11:26 am
[...] All of this leads me to wonder if everyone optimisticabout the fate of Iraq is really just plain naive, like the anti-war crowd would have you believe. This question makes this post by Mohammed from the excellent blog Iraq the Model important for everyone to read. As someone actually living in Iraq; something the anti-war people, who also refuse to listen anytime the troops report back positive, don’t; Mohammed provides valuable insight into the mood on the street in Iraq. While everything is not perfect, as evidenced by the fact that Prime Minister Maliki may have togive amnesty to some terrorists, the situation is not as bleak as the MSM and the left would have you believe: Baghdad looked tense today as the city witnessed the launch of the new massive security operation “Forward Together”. The feeling here ranges from anxiety to hope which I saw clear in the voice and looks of the people I met; in addition to the understandable anxiety that accompanies every new military operation I saw a lot about hope that this new operation may be able to stop or even reverse the deterioration of security in the capital. [...]
12:04 pm
When all is said and done, any question of amnesty will be entirely up to the Iraqi powers that be. And as a large, perpetual US presence will undoubtedly not be acceptable, Maliki et al will have to be in position to impose rather negotiate a settlement with remnants of the sunni terror group.
1:03 pm
[...] I’ll give the last word to Rick Moran: [...]
1:32 pm
No one has yet mentioned Muqtada Al Sadr and his Mahdi militia, or any of the Shia groups actually. Remember that we were in open combat with Sadr and his militia not long ago. They killed American soldiers (I don’t know the exact number) and we killed scores of his fighters. He was finally forced into an agreement and quit attacking Americans. Ostensibly he is now part of the political process, though he is still very anti-American, still has his militia, and probably commands more firepower and loyalty than Maliki does. He and his militia have a de-facto amnesty now and they paid no political or other price for that amnesty.
So I think some kind of amnesty for Sunni Iraqis, and I put an emphasis on Iraqis, is in order. The Sunnis won’t play ball without it. Almost all insurgencies where a peace is negotiated involve some sort of amnesty, so this is hardly unprecedented. Foreign Fighters are another matter. I don’t see how Iraq can grant foreigners amnesty, especially for entering the country illegally with the sole intent to kill Iraqis. I seriously doubt Maliki would do this, especially considering his strong ties with the Shia. The details of any Sunni amnesty would probably include most insurgents except for the most violent, but we’ll have to see what gets worked out.
8:41 pm
“Victory” will not be achieved until we deploy enough troops to the region to fight this regional war. The rest, is just smoke and mirrors.
9:54 pm
Well, let’s hear it for moral relativism! It’s nice to see conservatives taking the high road. Complete victory? You guys so don’t get it.
11:10 pm
Peter, what is this “moral relativism” crap? Do you not know how to read? What part of the post or any part of any comment does the term “Complete Victory” occur?
And when do liberals have enough guts to even entertain even the thought of “victory”? The last time I saw anyone from your side of the street with supposedly some street cred in this arena was some Congressman named Murtha who couldn’t wait to show Al Qaeda our backsides as he wanted us to cut & run! Victory? I’m surprised anyone from your side of the street can even spell the word.
And what kind of kool aid could provide your meager little mind with enough ammunition to come up with such big words as “moral relativism”? Why don’t you go back to your play station and let the adults continue our discussion. Oh, and don’t forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed – that’s a good little boy.
12:51 am
Funny to read the above posting, especially the personal attacks. If Libs had begun talk of amnesty, it would have been called traitors, comitting treason by selling out our troops. But when Conservatives do it, it is all good.
But here is the joke. The latest report is that the PM of Iraq has denied any amnesty program and has fired the aid who talked to the press. Oopsy!
I am anxious to discover if the Senators who supported amnesty today and the above writers will now flip flop and quickly shout, “Never mind”.
“We decide with our emotions and explain with
our intellect”.
If you guys have your way you will support the troops by granting amnesty to Saddam.
1:47 am
No matter what anyone says, you can’t have a peaceful end to an insurgency without an amnesty. Period. Maliki will have to consider amnesty no matter what he claims now. What form that takes is up to the Iraqis. Besides, it’s impossible to single out individuals who “attacked” US troops. It’s not like the ones that get away leave their business card. Every insurgent will claim whatever is required to meet the eventual amnesty conditions and, for 95% of them, it will be impossible to verify their claims. So only those 5% who represent the leadership and some of the more active and brutal insurgents will likely have amnesty denied or seriously questioned. That’s simply the way things work.
And like I said above, we’ve already given a 100% unconditional amnesty to the Shias who fought us. That was part of the price paid to get them into the political process. Now the same must be done with the Sunnis, except it won’t be unconditional or 100%. Early bird gets the worm I suppose.
8:24 am
This is insurgency surrender, while conditional, surrender. To call for a continuation of hostilities when a political option is available is outrageous. How many of those that have died, would want their buddy to die for a bogus proposition their death was in vain for fighting to bring about a functioning democracy in Iraq, when the functioning democracy they died for has a path for success of that end? The cut and run crowd that are willing to let these lives in fact be in vain, now have raised this new threshold as a domestic political effort to harrass the Bush Administration. This is equivalent of claiming Truman let the Emperor of Japan off after killing 300,000 Americans. We have to ask these Democrat insurgents, How many more Americans and Iraqis have to die to meet their new unconditional surrender goal post?
8:34 am
“If Libs had begun talk of amnesty, it would have been called traitors, comitting treason by selling out our troops. But when Conservatives do it, it is all good.”
Amnesty has been proposed before. And much like the current discussion, many of the comments then as now center on who would be given the opportunity for amnesty. Those who have targeted civilians, targeted Americans, etc. The bottom line is the issue is not Liberal versus Conservative but ultimately an Iraqi one. And as I said in my previous post (#7), Maliki and his administration will have to make those decisions.
Now when a troll enters into a discussion such as this one, a good bitch slapping is in order. Are you next?
12:48 pm
Why does Rightwing Nuthouse hate America?
1:01 pm
Missive Retaliation
Here is what constitutes al Donka’s three-pronged counterattack against the three big U.S. victories in Iraq over the past week (the newly-elected Iraqi government, the righteous detonation of “Emir” Zarqawi (man, but that name is difficult to type)...
1:29 pm
why do we accept amnesty? why is osama free? cause american blood is of no value to the bush administration. wake up, chumps.
1:58 pm
Amnesty- becuase we do not have enough troops in theater to fight this regional war, that is why. Bush did not raise a large enough Army, and now we are letting the terrorists go free? Don’t give me any BS about how insurgents do not equal terrorits, because everytime comservatives talk, the mix the two. ARE WE FIGHTING TERRORISTS IN IRAQ OR NOT? Amensty….jaysus…SMOKE AND MIRRORS, RAISE AN ARMY LIKE REAGAN WOULD, THEN COME TALK TO ME ABOUT WINNING.
2:05 pm
One last thing,all you equating the Iraqi gov giving amnesty to terrorists to our giving amnesty to Nazi’s in WW2 are smoking crack. That Amnesty was given on our terms, to people we designated… not on the anyone elses terms. See, WW2, we built an Army and got unconditional surrender..you know, we won! Build an army large enough to win this regional war, put up, make the sacrifice, or shut up, everything else is just smoke and mirrors!
8:08 pm
Apparently no one reads my comments, so I’ll say my two main points again: You can’t have a peaceful end to an insurgency without some kind of amnesty. Second, we already gave the Shia insurgents a blanket amnesty and no one said a word of complaint.
PC - your confusion on who we are fighting is understandable as the situation is complex and ever changing.. As it stands now, we are fighting multiple groups and there are other groups that conduct violent attacks that we are not actively fighting. We are primarily fighting foreign jihadists- terrorists who are not Iraqi nationals but are members of or affiliated with Al Qaeda. Zarqawi was the most famous example. We’re also fighting Iraqi Sunni insurgents. You can break this group down into two main factions. The first are radical former elements of Saddam’s regime. They have largely allied themselves with Al Qaeda, so they tend to get grouped together. They’re Rumsfeld means when he talks about “dead endersâ€. The other Sunni insurgents/militias are disaffected Sunni’s who are against the coalition and current Iraqi government, but could be brought into the political process. Some parts of this group actually have joined the political process, but they play both sides of the fence by talking politics and supporting violence at the same time. A large focus of the new Iraqi government is on bringing these Sunnis fully into the process and get them to end violent action.
There are also several Shia militias. The largest is Muqtada Al Sadr’s Al Mahdi militia. Sadr basically speaks for a large majority of disaffected Shia youth and his Mahdi army is pretty powerful. He’s the most powerful Shia figure next to Sistani. He’s managed to infilitrate loyalists into most of the army and police force, which has led to accusations that government forces are actively murdering Sunnis. He’s not actively fighting the coaltion (though he did back in 2004). Mostly he conducts reprisal attacks against Sunnis. Finally, there are the usual criminal gangs that you’ll find in any society, except they are very well armed in Iraq. Many of the gangs have associations with or are directly part of militias. At that level, it’s really hard to tell who is a street thug and who is an insurgent since they often look and act the same.
I hope that clears things up
1:02 am
Let me get this straight, allow Amnesty For Iraqi Killers, But Not for illegal Immigrants? Maybe we could let Iraqi Terrorists be citizens too.
6:24 pm
[...] PUNDIT VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM ZERO POINT BLOG VICTORY IS IN SIGHT BEYOND THE PALE THE “NEW MEDIA” STARTING TO LOOK OLD DEMOCRATS GO OUT WITH A WHIMPER ONIRAQ THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN TEAM USA JUST NOT READY FOR THE BIG TIME THE POLITICS OF WMD SITE DOWN “TELL THOSE DIRTY FASCISTS TO STOP THE NAME CALLING!” THE IMMORALITY OF THE DEMOCRATS’ POSITION ON THE WAR “ENDEAVORING TO PERSEVERE” WHY JOHNNY CAN’T FIND RAMADI ON A MAP MURTHA: OLD SOLDIERS SHOULD JUST FADE AWAY WHY WE NEED MORE INTROSPECTION FROM THE MEDIA PREVIEW: TEAM USA VS. ITALY THE COWARDICE OF THE DEMOCRATS LA TIMES OFFERS MORE PROOF WHY NO ONE BOTHERS TO READ IT ANYMORE THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN: DOUBLETHINK EDITION JOHN KERRY IS A WEASEL AMNESTY FOR SOME INSURGENTS MAY BE THE PRICE OF VICTORY ONE DAY AT A TIME “A GRAND OLD FLAG” CLASH OF THE TITANS! JASON LEOPOLD’S HEAD EXPLODES TERROR SUSPECTS CHARGE ABUSE IN VATICAN PRISON “24″ (65) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (87) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (66) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (24) Cindy Sheehan (12) Ethics (60) General (283) Government (43) History (58) IMMIGRATION REFORM (11) Iran (26) IRAQI RECONCILIATION (1) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (86) Middle East (24) Moonbats (48) NET NEUTRALITY (2) Open House (1) Politics (210) Science (15) Space (13) Supreme Court (19) UNITED NATIONS (1) War on Terror (121) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (48) WHITE SOX (1) Wide Awakes Radio (1) WORLD CUP (8) WORLD POLITICS (41) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN [...]