Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iraq: Insurgents respond to government "Peace Plan"
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, June 27, 2006

In a hopeful sign:
Several Sunni-led insurgent groups have approached the Iraqi government to try to start negotiations after the Iraqi prime minister's presentation on Sunday of a limited plan for reconciliation, a senior legislator from the prime minister's party said Monday.

The groups have made no demands yet, but wanted to express their views to top government officials, said the legislator, Hassan al-Suneid. "There are signals" from "some armed groups to sit at the negotiating table," said Mr. Suneid, who, like the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, belongs to the Islamic Dawa Party, a conservative Shiite group.

The groups, made up of Iraqi nationalist fighters, have floated their proposal through Sunni Arab negotiators, Mr. Suneid said in a telephone interview. Although he described the groups as armed, he said they "are not implicated in the bloodletting of Iraqis."

Mr. Suneid declined to say how many groups wanted to open talks, who they were and how big or influential they were. There are indications that seven insurgent factions are involved.
The size and identification of the groups is not known although at some point the names of 6 groups were associated with those making overtures. The person who is initially identifed as having name them now denied doing so:
The Associated Press reported Monday that Mr. Suneid, the Shiite legislator, identified six of the seven groups he said had approached the government. They were the 1920 Revolution Brigades, the Army of Muhammad, the Heroes of Iraq, the Ninth of April Group, Al Fatah Brigades and the Brigades of the General Command of the Armed Forces.

But when asked later about those names, Mr. Suneid said he had never mentioned them.
Information is sketchy about these groups but some can be found. 1920 Revolution Brigades here. Another source on that group:
One of the seven groups, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, operates primarily in Anbar province. The organisation claims it has conducted operations only against US forces. They and other insurgents were said to have protected polling places in Anbar province during December parliamentary voting.
Army of Muhammad informationhere. Another source has this to say about the Army of Muhammad:
The Mohammed Army is made up of former members of Saddam‘s Baath Party, members of his elite Republican Guards and former military commanders. It, too, has focused attacks on the U.S. military and played a role in the November 2004 battle for Fallujah.
It further identifies these particular groups as mostly former Ba'athists and Republican Guard members:
The seven lesser groups, most of them believed populated by former members or backers of Saddam Hussein ‘s government, military or security agencies, have said they want a truce, Hassan al-Suneid, a lawmaker and member of the political bureau of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki‘s Dawa Party, told The Associated Press.
Another point to consider:
This is not the first time insurgent groups have approached the government, Mr. Suneid said. Earlier this year, those same groups began discussions with President Jalal Talabani, a powerful Kurd. An aide to Mr. Talabani told reporters in April that he had spoken to seven guerrilla groups and that an agreement "was possible."

Mr. Suneid said the groups appeared to be interpreting the latest reconciliation plan as an opening for them to reach out to Mr. Maliki and bring the earlier talks to a new level.

"The Sunni mediators told me there's a kind of positive approach by these armed groups in response to this initiative," he said. "I think the initiative will open up a new atmosphere for these dialogues and upgrade them."
So this isn't the first attempt by these groups to "come in from the cold" so to speak. It does, however, indicate the seriousness of their intent. There isn't any information on queries by other insurgent groups to the offer. Some in the government feel the offer isn't enough:
Al-Maliki unveiled his 24-point national reconciliation initiative on Sunday, offering amnesty to insurgents who renounce violence and have not committed terror attacks. Iraq’s Sunni vice president Tareq al-Hashemi said the plan was “not enough to attract” those fighting US-led forces in Iraq.
Some, of course, and as expected, have rejected the offer:
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, the terrorist umbrella organisation that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq, rejected the reconciliation plan.

"The servant of the crusaders, Nouri al-Maliki, has come forward with a new, sinister project aimed at extracting his crusader overlords from their morass," the organisation said in an internet statement.
As for the 7 in negotiations, an interesting twist:
Othman was unable to name the groups or say whether they were the same ones Talibani had contacted. But he said they also sought talks with US forces.

"They want negotiation with the Americans. The seven groups have real fears of the Iranian influence. They think that the Americans will eventually leave, but Iran is a neighbour and is not going anywhere," he said.
They see Iran as the real threat (given that the insurgents are mostly Sunni and Iran Shia) and have apparently bought into the idea that the Americans are going to leave Iraq at some date in the not too distant future.

Meanwhile, now that the 24 point plan has been announced, several of its points are now being negotiated and modified within the government. Look for a modified version to emerge within the coming weeks.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This has a promising sound to it. I for one am not opposed to amnesty IF it will lead to a stable Iraq.

It also seems that the "local" groups are wising up to or at least becoming wary of, the imported "insurgents" true agenda. This also has a positive sound to it.
 
Written By: DCB
URL: http://
It also seems that the "local" groups are wising up to or at least becoming wary of, the imported "insurgents" true agenda. This also has a positive sound to it.
Well YEAH... the imports want to impose the Sharia and create a Taliban-like state. The Sunni’s represent Arab secularism and Iraqi nationalism, and the "Prince of Iraq" (Zarqawi) was a JORDANIAN! It would be as if Canadians sent Trudeau to the US to support an a rebellion to install Canadian-style government in the United States. Not always a good match. Both sides agreed that the US needed to go home and that the Shi’i and Kurds needed to keep their place(s) with the Sunni on top.

Of course this is merely window dressing for the US admission of Quagmire...Defeat...Neo-con over-reach (that’s for YOU Shark)...Soon Iraq will be run by Iran, so take that NEO-CONS!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So the Iraqi insurgency may have had a plan to win their war, but they had not, before now, come up with a plan to "win the peace"?

Why is having Iraqis run Iraq any more choke-inducing to neo-cons than, say, living with Kuwaitis running Euwait or a bunch of Arab Emirs running the United Arab Emirates? As more of a paleo-con my own self I don’t understand why setting up a solid Iraqi republic is supposed to run counter to conservative tastes.

When are we going to be able to pull the troops out, by the way. From Korea, I mean? Surely the local pro-US forces ought to be able to grant amnesty to the impoverished insurgent/militants in the northern provinces; make some sort of deal with the warlord Kim, and allow the US to "bring the troops home" (We never use the expression "cut and run") before the 2008 elections. If not, why not?



 
Written By: pouncer
URL: http://
Not sure where you’re comming from pouncer.

So far the people making the most noise against an amnesty have been the Democrats (at least in the media.)

A promise of amnesty is bringing elements of the insurgency to the bargining table.

We’ll see where it goes from here.

Speaking of timelines, interesting that what is described as an "invitation to failure" in a speech in 2003 is now "necessary for success."

I just love it when people contradict themselves for political gain. And I just love the internet.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
(We never use the expression "cut and run") before the 2008 elections.
Kerry did in that 2003 speech linked above. ’course perhaps he was planning ahead for 2008 . . . (he has lots of plans I understand).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider