Never say never... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 06-09-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

US makes contact with Iraqi insurgents
By Borzou Daragahi in Baghdad
June 10, 2005

The US embassy in Baghdad has held indirect talks with members of violent Iraqi insurgent groups, edging back from a long-standing position not to negotiate with "terrorists" or those who have American or Iraqi blood on their hands.

"People stop shooting at us, and we - and I think the Iraqi Government - are ready to engage," a US official said in Baghdad on Wednesday.

The US is hoping to persuade Iraq's insurgents to lay down their weapons and join the political process. But the insurgency is thought to be comprised of diffuse groups of fighters, and it was unclear how broad a section has been involved in the contacts with the US.

On Tuesday a former minister in Iraq's interim government said the leaders of two insurgent groups were prepared to discuss conditions for ending their campaign of attacks.

Aiham Alsammarae, who was electricity minister under the former prime minister Iyad Allawi, said the groups, which he identified as the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Mujahideen Army, were willing to enter negotiations with US and Iraqi officials.

Reports of meetings between figures associated with the insurgency and US officials began emerging earlier this year, but US authorities previously have declined to provide details.

US military commanders in war-torn swaths of Iraq have long sent olive branches and ultimatums to militants through tribal and religious leaders. A Pentagon official described those interactions as informal and insubstantial.

"There has been some dialogue with these guys, but no negotiations," the official said.

The talks confirmed by the official appeared to be more formal contacts between insurgents and American diplomats, mainly using Sunni Arab political and religious figures as intermediaries.

Abdul Salaam Kubaysi, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, an influential Sunni Arab group, said he knew of at least three instances where figures close to the insurgency had approached the US embassy about the prospects of cutting a deal, the latest about four days ago.

For months, Iraq's interim leaders have been in contact with representatives of insurgent groups, trying to bring them into the political process. But the new participation of the Americans in such talks might help convince the guerillas that the negotiations could have substantial results.

The discussions could indicate a new willingness on the part of the guerillas to lay down their weapons.

■ In a move certain to further inflame sectarian tensions with Sunni Arabs, Iraqi leaders said on Wednesday they strongly supported the existence of an Iranian-trained Shiite militia known as the Badr Organisation and praised the militia's role in trying to secure the country.

It was the first time the new Iraqi Government has publicly backed an armed group that was created along sectarian lines, and it was an implicit rejection of repeated requests by American officials that the Government disband all militias in the country.

Meanwhile Sunni Arab leaders on Wednesday demanded double the number of representatives on a parliamentary committee drafting the new constitution, threatening to boycott the process if the Shiite-dominated parliament did not meet their demand.

The Washington Post, The New York Times, Associated Press

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-...123959704.html

I was going to title this thread "Did someone say back-flip? Again?!", but thought better of it.

Personally, I see this change in the Administration's position of "splendid (and arrogant) isolationism" as a good thing.

Everyone knows the US is unable to defeat the insurrgents. The British and Irish know that. The Israeli's know that. So it's best to negotiate with them.

Hopefully this will help start the reduction of the terrible carnage in Iraq. Of course there will always be the crazies to deal with, but it's nice to see acknowledgement of the fact that the US is not dealing with only "terrorists" over there. This despite the irrational heretofore contention that this was the case.

Mr Mephisto

alansmithee · 06-09-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-...123959704.html

I was going to title this thread "Did someone say back-flip? Again?!", but thought better of it.

Personally, I see this change in the Administration's position of "splendid (and arrogant) isolationism" as a good thing.

Everyone knows the US is unable to defeat the insurrgents. The British and Irish know that. The Israeli's know that. So it's best to negotiate with them.

Hopefully this will help start the reduction of the terrible carnage in Iraq. Of course there will always be the crazies to deal with, but it's nice to see acknowledgement of the fact that the US is not dealing with only "terrorists" over there. This despite the irrational heretofore contention that this was the case.

Mr Mephisto

I see this as a horrible precident that will potentially weaken any foreign US efforts for years to come.

The US is only dealing with terrorists over there. Because they aren't necessarily islamic fundamentalists don't mean that they aren't terrorists. Actions like this only help ensure that the US looks foolish to the rest of the world.

And as for not being able to beat the terrorists in Iraq, It is possible to do. But it isn't possible to beat the terrorists fighting the type of war many liberals think we should.

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 03:40 PM

Eventually, in every war both sides must come to some agreement.

It is impossible for the US to EVER end all the fighting in Iraq unless some sort of peace is diplomatically worked out.

What Bush said before was nothing more than sabre rattling, trying to win support for the war and energize the troops.

Everyone who is of sound mind and intelligence knew and knows, eventually you have to negotiate to end a war.

Perhaps, this is a sign Bush is wanting to end the war, before the war gets worse and support truly turns.

alansmithee · 06-09-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Eventually, in every war both sides must come to some agreement.

It is impossible for the US to EVER end all the fighting in Iraq unless some sort of peace is diplomatically worked out.

What Bush said before was nothing more than sabre rattling, trying to win support for the war and energize the troops.

Everyone who is of sound mind and intelligence knew and knows, eventually you have to negotiate to end a war.

Perhaps, this is a sign Bush is wanting to end the war, before the war gets worse and support truly turns.

This isn't a war like others, there are no formal combatants. There is no representatives to make binding agreements, the opposition is composed of bands of murderers and thugs who measure achivement in the form of body counts and press clippings. We see much the same thing in Israel, where no sooner than an agreement is reached that some new group (or old group) decides the time is ripe for a bombing.

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

This isn't a war like others, there are no formal combatants. There is no representatives to make binding agreements, the opposition is composed of bands of murderers and thugs who measure achivement in the form of body counts and press clippings. We see much the same thing in Israel, where no sooner than an agreement is reached that some new group (or old group) decides the time is ripe for a bombing.

I look at it as progress in which, maybe we can find Iraq policing itself sooner than later and reaching agreements with the stronger groups that CAN police themselves better than we or the new government can.

Mephisto2 · 06-09-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The US is only dealing with terrorists over there.

That's nonesense that even the military and current Administration don't agree with.

There are terrorists out there, but as admitted by the US military, the vast majority of the fighters in Iraq are "insurgents".

Mr Mephisto

boatin · 06-09-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-...123959704.html

I was going to title this thread "Did someone say back-flip? Again?!"

I think the word you are looking for is "flip-flop"...

Personally, I think this is a good thing. Any group is motivated by particular things. It's always best to understand those things, and make decisions accordingly. The 'never negotiate' stance is thick necked and foolish in any situation I can think of. There ARE shades of grey.

Mephisto2 · 06-09-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I think the word you are looking for is "flip-flop"...

Opps... you're right. It's been a while since all that election nonesense...

Mr Mephisto

Lebell · 06-09-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I was going to title this thread "Did someone say back-flip? Again?!", but thought better of it.

Good call.

I think the thread title sets the tone of the posts that you receive.

As to the post, I can see why they are engaging and I agree with it. If the fighters are truely Sunni and foriegn insurgents and they have issues that can be effectively dealt with by including them in the political process, then it is a good thing.

But if they were foreign fighters who will only be satisfied driving out the "infidel", Iraqis be damned, then no, don't engage.

alansmithee · 06-09-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

That's nonesense that even the military and current Administration don't agree with.

There are terrorists out there, but as admitted by the US military, the vast majority of the fighters in Iraq are "insurgents".

Mr Mephisto

I guess since the current admin doesn't agree with that postition, it must be wrong, correct?

What exactly is an "insurgent"? They have no formal organization with which to negotiate, and the majority of their casualties aren't even US military, they are Iraqi civilians. Labelling these people anything but terrorists is akin to calling murders "homicide specialists" or some such euphamism.This designation is just what seems to be the opening attempt for the administration to try to save some face in the eyes of liberals when we end up leaving Iraq with our tails between our legs.

Mantus · 06-09-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I guess since the current admin doesn't agree with that postition, it must be wrong, correct?

What exactly is an "insurgent"? They have no formal organization with which to negotiate, and the majority of their casualties aren't even US military, they are Iraqi civilians. Labelling these people anything but terrorists is akin to calling murders "homicide specialists" or some such euphamism.This designation is just what seems to be the opening attempt for the administration to try to save some face in the eyes of liberals when we end up leaving Iraq with our tails between our legs.

alansmithee, there is no need for sarcasm and disrespect.

The basic concept here is to understand the problem, otherwise we can't solve it. Labeling everyone in the middle east a terrorist is counterproductive to our efforts. Finding a political solution to the insurgency in Iraq will save us billions of dollars and countless lives.

jorgelito · 06-09-2005, 06:16 PM

Wait, this actually brings up a good point: Does anyone know what the definitions of "terrorist" and "insurgents" are? Within the political context of course.

Semantics aside, I'm sure there are "legal" or norms & standards implications with the useage of this labeling.

Cynthetiq · 06-09-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Good call.

I think the thread title sets the tone of the posts that you receive.

As to the post, I can see why they are engaging and I agree with it. If the fighters are truely Sunni and foriegn insurgents and they have issues that can be effectively dealt with by including them in the political process, then it is a good thing.

But if they were foreign fighters who will only be satisfied driving out the "infidel", Iraqis be damned, then no, don't engage.

thank you. I have been noticing that of late some of the thread titles have been akin to,"C'mon I dare you to prove it wrong..."

06-09-2005, 03:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Eventually, in every war both sides must come to some agreement. It is impossible for the US to EVER end all the fighting in Iraq unless some sort of peace is diplomatically worked out. What Bush said before was nothing more than sabre rattling, trying to win support for the war and energize the troops. Everyone who is of sound mind and intelligence knew and knows, eventually you have to negotiate to end a war. Perhaps, this is a sign Bush is wanting to end the war, before the war gets worse and support truly turns. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-09-2005, 06:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Wait, this actually brings up a good point: Does anyone know what the definitions of "terrorist" and "insurgents" are? Within the political context of course. Semantics aside, I'm sure there are "legal" or norms & standards implications with the useage of this labeling.