Iraq Withdrawal: So, let’s plan it and do it Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, November 22, 2005
And as I pointed out, it appears it's already being done. Since the Iraqis are now officially calling for it to be done, I say we oblige them based on their own timeline:
Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.
The communique — finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday — condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.
"Insurgent", "terrorist" ... if they're killing Americans they need to die ... what they put on their gravemarker is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. What I don't see here is an agreement from the Sunnis to step back and stop the "insurgency" if the Americans (or "foreign troops") agree to a timetable for withdrawal. Seems to me that should be a part of any outreach to the Sunni "insurgency".
The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time — reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.
On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
In my estimation this is excellent news. It means the Iraqi government has decided on some metrics of its own, which I applaud. If they feel that they wil be 75% the middle of next year, that's great. If they feel they'll be done by this time next year, that's even better.
In reality it is they who should be making these sorts of statements, not the US. And I'm all for holding them to these timeframes. It's their decision and their timeline. But again, I don't at all understand an "agreement" that all but sanctions continued violence against both "foreign" and Iraqi forces:
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.
The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."
Resistance to what? If the agreement is an effort toward inclusion, an attempt to bring the Sunnis into the governmental fold, it would seem to me that the recognition of their "right to resistance" should also have included an agreement not to attack the military of the government in return for that inclusion. In essence these leaders are saying "leave us and the rest of the population alone, but these citizens of ours who are standing up and taking the risk of joining the military and police are fair game".
No wonder they wanted to remain anonymous. With agreements like that, perhaps it is time to gather up our stuff and leave.
In Egypt, the final communique’s attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional.
They intentionally omitted defining as terrorism, or condemning, attacks on U.S. forces?
Our young men and women die for them and it’s all just part of their "right of resistance"?
I agree, but however grudgingly, I also recognize a clear need for the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to cut necessary deals to move Iraqi forward. We had our chance to break the Sunni power base in Iraq during the ’major combat’ phase. Instead of attriting them, we chose the cheaper faster strategy of bypassing them to take Baghdad ASAP. So now, unless we go into the genocide business and try to eliminate the Sunni factor in the equation, we’re going to need to cut deals.
Yes, it bothers me - a lot. I can only keep hope an Iraq that can break the gridlock and move forward as a unified nation will lead to regional change. That will be our victory.
It is good news, it is an olive branch deal held out to moderate Sunni politicians. At the same time (in a way totally deniable way by the moderate Shia conducting these talks) irregular Shia are carrying a very big stick to the reclariant, ungrateful (Shia Pug refers to).
Here is a carrot and there is a STICK - this might work.
There will still be the Saudi funded terrorists running round blowing up markets, mosques and primary schools, this approach does nothing to stop them. But it represents progress nevertheless.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said
Maybe there is a silver lining in the black cloud of the terrorist attacks that have killed so many thousands of people in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan over the last several years. Now that Arabs have been on the receiving end of these horrific terrorist attacks they are starting to agree that terrorism is illegitimate. We’ll see if they really mean it and start to clean up their own house(s) of the terrorists in their midsts.
