PDA

View Full Version : Insurgents offer to give up the fight



Dport
06-28-06, 18:10
Insurgents offer to halt attacks in Iraq
By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers 47 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks — including those on American troops — if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Withdrawal is the centerpiece of a set of demands from the groups, which operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting has been to the west, those provinces are increasingly violent and attacks there have crippled oil and commerce routes.

The groups who've made contact have largely shunned attacks on Iraqi civilians, focusing instead on the U.S.-led coalition forces. Their offer coincides with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's decision to reach out to the Sunni insurgency with a reconciliation plan that includes an amnesty for fighters.

The Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council — the umbrella group that covers eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq — were not party to any offers to the government.

Naseer al-Ani, a Sunni Arab politician and official with the largest Sunni political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, said that al-Maliki should encourage the process by guaranteeing security for those making the offer and not immediately reject their demands.

"The government should prove its goodwill and not establish red lines," al-Ani said. "If the initiative is implemented in a good way, 70 percent of the insurgent groups will respond positively."

Al-Maliki, in televised remarks Wednesday, did not issue an outright rejection of the timetable demand. But he said it was unrealistic, because he could not be certain when the Iraqi army and police would be strong enough to make a foreign presence unnecessary for Iraq's security.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that President Bush's "view has been and remains that a timetable is not something that is useful. It is a signal to the enemies that all you have to do is just wait and it's yours.

"The goal is not to trade something off for something else to make somebody happy, the goal is to succeed," he said.

Bush has said U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for years to guarantee the success of the new Iraqi government. However, American military officials have said substantial reductions of the current force of 127,000 U.S. troops could be made before the end of 2007.

Eight of the 11 insurgent groups banded together to approach al-Maliki's government under The 1920 Revolution Brigade, which has claimed credit for killing U.S. troops in the past. All 11, working through intermediaries, have issued identical demands, according to insurgent spokesmen and government officials.

The officials spoke on condition of anomymity because of the sensitivity of the information and for fear of retribution.

The total number of insurgents is not known, nor how many men belong to each group. But there are believed to be about two dozen insurgent organizations in Iraq, so the 11 contacting the government could represent a substantial part of the Sunni-led insurgency.

Al-Maliki's offer of amnesty for insurgents would not absolve those who have killed Iraqis or American coalition troops. But proving which individuals have carried out fatal attacks would, in many — if not most — cases, be a difficult task.

The issue is extremely sensitive in the United States, which has lost more than 2,500 uniformed men and women in Iraq, many to the insurgents' bombs and ambushes.

Coinciding with al-Maliki's attempts to bring Sunni Arabs to the bargaining table, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad held talks Tuesday in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah. The Saudis have influence with many Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

Al-Maliki also set up an e-mail account to communicate with insurgents, flashing the address on the screen during a broadcast Sunday night.

For al-Maliki, reaching out to the Sunnis risks heightening tensions in his ruling coalition of mostly Shiite Muslim political groups. Al-Maliki is said to be increasingly disenchanted with the close ties between the country's most powerful Shiite organization and Iran, which is ruled by a Shiite theocracy.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite group with historic ties to the Iranians, favors close relations with Iran. Many of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians and religious figures spent years in Iranian exile during Saddam Hussein's regime.

In addition to the withdrawal timetable, the Iraqi insurgents have demanded:

• An end to U.S. and Iraqi military operations against insurgent forces.

• Compensation for Iraqis killed by U.S. and government forces and reimbursement for property damage.

• An end to the ban on army officers from Saddam's regime in the Iraqi military.

• An end to the government ban on former members of the Baath Party — which ruled the country under Saddam.

• The release of insurgent detainees.

The 1920 Revolution Brigades, the umbrella for seven other groups, was established in the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Its name refers to Iraq's historical fight against British colonialism.

The group has claimed responsibility for attacking American troops, including the downing of two helicopters in 2004.

"If they set a two-year timetable for the withdrawal we will stop all our operations immediately," said the leader in a telephone interview with the AP. The man, who refused to give his name for security reasons, spoke from the telephone of one of the mediators. Others present made similar remarks.

Besides the 1920 Revolution Brigades, the eight include Abtal al-Iraq (Heroes of Iraq), the 9th of April Group, al-Fateh Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Salahuddin Brigades, Mujahedeen Army and the Brigades of the General Command of the Armed Forces. The three other groups are small organizations that also mainly operate in areas north of Baghdad.

In other developments Wednesday:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his special services to hunt down and "destroy" the killers of four Russian Embassy workers in Iraq.

• National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said a key al-Qaida suspect wanted in the bombing of a Shiite shrine — a Tunisian identified as Yousri Fakher Mohammed Ali — was captured. However, he said the Iraqi mastermind of the attack that pushed the country to the brink of civil war, Haitham Sabah Shaker Mohammed al-Badri, was at large. There never was a claim of responsibility for the bombing.
-----------
I hope we take a cue from the Brits. They were very pragmatic in such things. While I don't think a total withdrawl is wise, I think striking deals with these groups would be a smart play.

Ice Cream Man
06-28-06, 18:47
I don't see us cutting any deals with these people, with some of the demands listed there I could see an easier time for the Suuni's to overthrow the new government there after we leave the region. Which would put those people in the same boat they were in before we went over there. Just my 2 cents.

Hobbes
06-28-06, 19:07
I don't see us cutting any deals with these people, with some of the demands listed there I could see an easier time for the Suuni's to overthrow the new government there after we leave the region. Which would put those people in the same boat they were in before we went over there. Just my 2 cents.

I agree, BUT I think just the fact that they are considering somewhat realistic negotiations is a good thing.

M4arc
06-28-06, 20:38
I'm actually surprised by their offer! I think it's a step in the right direction and I have to admit, I'd like to see our fine men and women out of Iraq within two years.

I say we entertain the offer and engage in negociations with them. At the very least we might learn more about why they are offering to come to the table.

Dport
06-28-06, 21:18
I think the key is allowing these groups some sort of face-saving. They are the ones who have to live in Iraq for the rest of their lives. We don't want to be there that long.

Besides, history is repleat with examples of defeated and humiliated enemies causing trouble later on. Germany after WWI for example.

VA_Dinger
07-01-06, 09:13
Wow, this is certainly good news.

sledge42
07-01-06, 12:12
my 2 cents is that if we leave to soon they will say they won the fight.....i dont know i just dont trust them yet.

Hobbes
07-01-06, 13:54
my 2 cents is that if we leave to soon they will say they won the fight.....i dont know i just dont trust them yet.

You are absolutely correct, but I see 2 reasons why this is good:

1. Maybe they really want peace (highly, highly unlikely)
2. They are buying time, hence they need time, because we have put a hurt on 'em. I view this as the most likely reason.

Thats my opinion, the tough part is we have to be very careful how we deal with this. If we say screw you, and refuse to even listen then we are war mongers who don't want peace, and we create more enemies. If we hold off, then we allow them to regroup and "dig in" so to speak.

sledge42
07-01-06, 14:06
absolutely....we have to finish it the right way.....but either way you look t it they dont like us anyway i read an column yeaterday from military.com that said that 2 us soilders where shot by the iraqi patrol they were with 1 of them was shot 8 times with different calibers...that doesnt earn MY trust..