Amnesty, negotiation, magic bullets, withdrawal, what will it be for Iraq?

What's going to happen in Iraq? Magic bullets? Negotiations with the enemy and their supporters? Withdrawal? U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the United States is too strong to lose the war in Iraq.

"You've got a situation where it's not possible to lose militarily," Rumsfeld said. "It's also going to require more than military power to prevail."

Indeed, and Daniel Pipes understands that perfectly:

Soldiers, sailors, and airmen once determined the outcome of warfare, but no longer. Today, television producers, columnists, preachers, and politicians have the pivotal role in deciding how well the West fights. This shift has deep implications.

In a conventional conflict like World War II, fighting had two premises so basic, they went nearly unnoticed.

The first: Conventional armed forces engage in an all-out fight for victory. ...

Second assumption: Each side's population loyally backs its national leadership. ...

Both aspects of this paradigm are now defunct in the West. source and here

We can't tell the good guys from the bad buys in Iraq these days. We don't even know how to tell a Shiite from a Sunni, do we?

It doesn't help when Saddam is allowed to dictate a letter during a 4 hour session with his attorneys and that letter gets out to the terrorists in Iraq. Today Saddam blames the divisions in Iraq on his trial. Is anyone in the press listening to the witnesses testify to the genocide or innocent civilians, or the brutal prisons Saddam and his sons ran? Reports of 182,000 dead in one instance, 7,000 in another. Why? Just because they were Kurds.

On the dividing of Iraq into three separate regions, Saddam says that the 'Zionists' will be the only ones to benefit if that happens. President George W. Bush still says he will not divide Iraq into separate regions. Others think dividing Iraq is just a matter of time.

The report of the Iraq Study Group, led by Mr Baker, is expected to propose significant changes to American strategy, including negotiating with Iran and Syria or even pulling US troops out of harm’s way to bases beyond Iraq’s borders.

The report will not be published until after votes have been counted, when President Bush will know if the Republicans have lost control of one or both Houses of Congress. ... “There will probably be some things in our report that the Administration might not like,” Mr Baker said last week. ...

According to leaks that are beginning to dribble out of the commission, it has focused on two options: negotiating a settlement with current foes or phased withdrawal. source

Negotiate with who? Damascus and Tehran? 'Violence in Iraq could end "within months" if Iran and Syria joined efforts to stabilise the country, says Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.'

The idea for the US to open talks with Iran and Syria over Iraq is said to be under consideration by a panel of experts examining US policy on Iraq. source

And then there's this, if it's true: "The Bush administration is pressing the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki to issue a “broad” and “painful” amnesty for insurgents in spite of intense opposition to the proposal from politicians both in Iraq and the US, according to a senior administration official."

We still have to deal with militias like Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, who are planning on marching in Baghdad, upset because Sheikh Mazen al-Saedi, head of the Sadr movement offices in Karkh (west Baghdad) was arrested. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has promised to disarm the militias and "strike whoever tries to violate the security of the country and threaten the civil peace". So far we haven't seen anything strong from him.

So what is the answer? Dennis Ross thinks he has a plan.

As a longtime negotiator in the Middle East, I learned that the most demanding requirement of peacemaking was just getting each side to adjust to reality. ... Ultimately, if Iraqis are ready to resolve their internal political differences, to adjust to reality and to make the hard choices they face, our presence can help in the transition. But if they continue to avoid reality, our presence will simply prolong both their state of denial and ours. source

At this point only God knows. ________________________________________________________________________________ Linked with The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, "Links That Don't Stink">Links That Don't Stink"

Comments

[Rastaman]

Excellent post!

We, the USA that is, now has permanent, as in set in cement, military bases in Iraq with nice long landing fields for aircraft. This was one of our primary goals, to replace the Middle East bases we got kicked out of in Saudi Arabia, so that one is achieved at least.

The British will be leaving Iraq soon. When Tony Blair goes, the British troops will go also. This is a given. This will leave pretty much just us and a few Canadians and Aussies. In the meantime, homegrown opposition to the war is increasing.

Bush has said he won't withdraw as long as he's President but he's said other things that weren't so. I do believe he'll stick with this one though because as long as our guys keep dying, Halliburton keeps making tons of money. Once we leave Iraq, Halliburton will lose its contract.

So what I see happening is, when the Brits leave, this will provide the excuse for Bush to pull back a lot of troops to safer areas and let the Iraqis go ahead and murder each other enmasse like they want to. It's not like they haven't been given enough time to get their acts together.

Partition will very likely occur, in 2 parts, creating Kurdistan. The remainder will be Iraq with the Shiites and Sunnis whacking away at each other for some time to come. I don't see a Shiastan and a Sunnistan.

If our Corporate Government would just bite the financial, oil-soaked bullet and take out Iran and take the temporary losses, a horrible future disaster will be avoided. A very certain horrible future disaster and one that will make any potential losses now look like a penny-ante poker game.

Rastaman
www.islamanazi.com

[shlemazl]

We need to stick around until it's time to deal with Iran. Iraq has a prime location.

Following that we should let them have their civil war as they didn't want prosperity and democracy.

[Ma r t i n @ b l o g b a t]

I don't get the problem. There is a war-front pipeline between Syria and Iraq and Iran and Iraq. We reverse the flow and the sewage spills into Syria and Iran. Being reactionary is a confusing place to be and why being proactive and setting the agenda is where victory lies. Or am I missing something, Rummy?

[RoadKnight]

Thank you, James. I sincerely appreciate your kind words.

BTW, any idea why you couldn't comment? Was blogger messing up again?

[James Biga]

Road Knight,

I couldn't post on your site so here goes. I'm sure you're aware that your not the only one to go through this experience. I'm just glad you didn't end up like quite a few and argue until the argument stopped. If Jacob could wrestle with God all noght you can have a few words here and there. You came to the right conclusion, use his strength to follow through.

God Bless

[RoadKnight]

Hmmmm. James may just have an idea there.

Turn Iraq over to the Moslems. Pull all of our troops out of the region (except Israel). Help Israel deport all the "palestinians" and Moslem Israelis. Then declare the Middle East (minus Israel) to be Moslem territory. But warn them, if a Moslem harms a single hair on the head of any Israeli, there will be immediate and swift nuclear retaliation on the entire Moslem world.

Think it would work? Hehe.

[Thomas Hamilton]

We could still just make a nice shiny parking lot out of the whole place and then leave. Do Iran and Syria too. The world would be free of that many more Muslims..........oh there I go dreamin' again.........

[James Biga]

If stability is all we want then let Iran and Syria have Iraq. Heck, let them have Lebanon too. In fact turn the whole Middle East over to them. Pull our boys out and let the whole region fall into Islamic stability. I'm sure Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia would welcome this kind of stability. I'm sure this stability would cease all Terror operations and put out a welcome mat to the west. All would be forgotten and we would finally have peace on earth. I don't know what I have been thinking. I should have thought of this before. Islam isn't bad its just the lack of stability in the region. If it weren't for these fantastical ideas of liberty and freedom and individual worth, everyone would get along fine. Damn that George Washington and his fellow horseman Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, and Tom Jefferson. They are the cause of all this. If they had only realized all we need is stability. Freedom is a side issue of little or no importance. I apologise Mohammed, I didn't realize you were just trying to stabilize the world. I made an assumption that you were trying to increase your power and treasure not realizing that this idea is purely western. Where do I go to get my wife a burka and sign up for three more wives? I will do anything for stability.