home

Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal

That was quick. After writing yesterday about the new Iraqi Government's proposed peace plan to be presented Sunday, 11 insurgent leaders have already rejected it.

Representatives of 11 Iraqi insurgent groups told The Sunday Times yesterday that they would reject the peace offer because they did not recognise the legitimacy of the government.

A senior commander authorised to speak on behalf of other groups warned that they would continue to fight. "As long as there is an occupation and an illegitimate government, the resistance and insurgency will continue," he said.

Newsweek has more on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's "master plan."

< Republican Defections | Sunday Blogorama and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:22:58 PM EST
    There's "groups" of insurgents? That's the first time I've seen that information. I always thought they were insurgents and either dead enders, al Queda, or the Sadr gang. Who would've thought there were so many different groups opposing our occupation. Nice job, news media.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#2)
    by John Mann on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:04:32 PM EST
    Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal
    Why would they? Let's hope they offer one. The "coalition" could accept it and leave.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#3)
    by aw on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:50:51 PM EST
    John Mann, you hit the nail on the head. Unless the various insurgent groups (and there seem to be many) are included in negotiations there will never be peace.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:32:01 AM EST
    That's Easy The Insurgents are Bush Jr. Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:23:40 AM EST
    i do believe i predicted exactly this on the post announcing the proposed "peace" deal. why, yes, i believe i did. duckman, what cave have you been in for the past couple of years? of course there's "groups" of insurgents. what, you thought maybe they were just all free lancers?

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:54:34 AM EST
    The Times Online article final paragraph quotes an insurgent commander as saying:
    "This whole so-called reconciliation plan is being exaggerated as a breakthrough to help to promote Maliki and his government as well as to aid the Americans to find a face-saving way out of Iraq."
    In yesterdays thread about the proposal my opinion was that the timing, with the November US elections on the horizon, was suspiciously manipulative:
    The US backed Iraqi government, a national government that meets in the United States Green Zone behind walls, barbed wire, and a cordon of U.S. troops, says it wants a timetable for withdrawal of US forces, possibly providing Bush with a way to appear to extract from the mess he's made of Iraq and try to save face at the same time?
    Iraq and the November Elections:
    Those of us who remember the Vietnam War understand that peace breaks out just before every election. And we are seeing the signs right now.
    This "peace" deal stinks of another attempted manipulation of the American public by the rovian propaganda machine.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    Bush, leader of the worlds most 'powerful' country is a trend setter. He is evidentially setting an example of how far a leader can push the limits of executive power:
    Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented a 28-point reconciliation plan to parliament on Sunday. Al-Hayat reports that Malik views this initiative as a privilege of the executive and that he does not intend to have parliament vote on it. A Shiite parliamentarian said ti was outrageous to by-pass parliament in this way.
    Juan Cole also adds that the plan would both exclude those who have killed US troops or Iraqis citizens. In other words those who have no need of amnesty would be granted it.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    Squeaky, thanks for the link. Cole goes on to make some rather "pointed" points:
    ...the Bush administration made al-Maliki back off the idea of granting amnesty to guerrillas who had killed US troops. ...if the point of the amnesty is to bring the guerrilla leadership in from the cold, this amnesty is useless. What Sunni Arab guerrillas worth their salt have killed no Iraqis and no US troops? This is like Kissinger saying he would talk to the North Vietnamese but not to any of them who helped the VC kill ARvN and US soldiers. There wouldn't have been any round table talks
    The whole thing appears more and more to be nothing but stinking piles of BS and smoke and mirrors... and contains as its core the same old insolent and insulting assumption that the American people are so incredibly stupid that they will be suckered again. Unfortunately some will. Hopefully not enough...

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    I think this is in large part pure electioneering by bushco.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    didn't we just recently see a general make the infamous statement about seeing "light at the end of the tunnel."? at this point, i'm not sure how we can gracefully extract ourselves from this self-created mess. if we just up and leave, the iraqi people are left to the tender mercies of the various factions fighting for control of the country, much as what happened when we left vietnam. this administration has managed to degrade the all-volunteer military to the point where any substantive increase in troop strength would necessitate a draft, which is why they are balking at it. the republicans know that would kill their party, for years to come. i have no idea what the right approach is at this juncture.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    cpinva: i have no idea what the right approach is at this juncture. I wonder if there even is one. It looks to me like not only "if we just up and leave, the iraqi people are left to the tender mercies of the various factions fighting for control", but that the violence and infighting is going to continue whether or not we leave. It seems to have come down to a "lesser of two evils" choice, and is anbody's guess which is the lesser. The NYT reports today on a argument by Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations that perhaps the best thing to do now is let Iraq break up into three parts: Kurds, Shia, and Sunni - and let them fight it out, on the theory that in the long run it will be less bloody:
    Iraq's three main groups -- the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds -- are killing each other with greater ferocity than ever, and the Americans are playing referee.
    ...
    As attractive as the idea of dividing Iraq into sectarian regions sounds, it has one big problem: Especially in Iraq's urban areas, it could be a bloody affair. (Mr. Gelb acknowledges this, but says the risk of violence is no greater than under other solutions proposed for Iraq.)
    It seems though that, like an addict, bushco cannot resist continuing to meddle thinking that somehow the same blundering that got them into the mess will miraculously get them out... Truly a Pandora's Box.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    A gigantic dose of humility and freedom-engendered dialogue with the world would be a good start to changing this and other things. Be the equivalent of the person in the room EVERYBODY wants to talk to, hang with, get to know. You won't get everybody, of course, but the way we're going we'll be lucky not to have an empty house soon. It's an art form we need. But we've got heathens in charge of the canvasses right now. Howard Beale, where are you???

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    Dadler: A gigantic dose of humility and freedom-engendered dialogue with the world would be a good start As you manage to do often, Dadler, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The awareness that a mindset change as the foundation of finding a way of pulling out of this tailspin before the ground rushes up and hits the country and the world at irretrievably damaging speed is an awareness that is starting to take root in fertile cultivated soil in some places where it may grow and find real-world expression. Hopefully it will show results before we crash. Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in his book "The Opportunity" a bit over a year ago, presented an anti-neocon foreign policy in which he:
    ...resembles liberal critics of Bush in emphasizing that multilateral cooperation will strengthen rather than weaken the United States.
    ...
    But there the similarities end. Haass expresses ambivalence about the United Nations and about championing human rights. Instead, his ideal is a kind of Kissingerian order and stability that supposedly prevailed after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when the high and mighty carved up the map of Europe. According to Haass, history "is largely determined by the degree to which the major powers of the era can agree on rules of the road -- and impose them on those who reject them." This imposition can take place, Haass suggests, if the United States works harder to bring China and Russia into an international community, and sheds the delusive notion that it can, or should, remain the dominant world power. * ... Haass may be laying the groundwork for a counterrevolution. Just as the neoconservatives spent years churning out manifestoes to make their case for a more assertive foreign policy, so the realists have now become the embattled minority of the Republican Party.
    *emphasis mine As with all ideas, Haass' will not please everyone, but it is worth serious consideration and discussion, and seems to be an idea that can be an example of the 'art of the possible', and has as its basis cooperation rather than confrontation with the world, and the desire to work together towards mutually beneficial solutions.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    A March 16/2006 interview of Richard Haass is here, and more of his writings are here. More about his book "The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course" is here.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    edger and squeaky - Cole wrote:
    The problem is quite the other way around. The amnesty is not extended to anyone who has "shed Iraqi blood," and the Bush administration made al-Maliki back off the idea of granting amnesty to guerrillas who had killed US troops.
    In the link that contains the above, Cole provides no proof, or even a link to proof of that claim. Do you have any??

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    Gee ppj, you have obviously not read much of Cole. He provides this link. Unlike you, I have never known Cole to just make sh*t up. bbc

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:48:23 AM EST
    Edger... This "peace" deal stinks of another attempted manipulation of the American public by the rovian propaganda machine. Of course! And your blog is yet another example of how the left is NEVER satisfied, and the party of contradictions! Get out of Iraq now! Oh...you are talking about "peace" .. it's obviously "attempted manipulation" by the Government. Gas is too high.... But you can't drill anywhere near the USA. The death penalty is wrong. But let's make sure abortion stays legal! The upper middle class needs to pay more taxes. But let's make sure all the illegal aliens get a free pass....etc..etc... blah blah blah The left is ruining the country The right is letting them do it We need a 3rd party!

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    The American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, said at a news briefing later today that the amnesty, thought to be a key element of the plan, would be "context dependent," and that "a lot of details will need to be worked out." But he said that the amnesty would not give cover to insurgents who had attacked Americans.
    link

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:00:18 AM EST
    The left is ruining the country
    talk about knee jerk BS. When the last time the left had any power in this country. Of course to some anyone to the left of Coulter and Savage is the left.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#20)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    Without Amnesty to insurgents who attacked US soldiers there is no plan. DOA

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    Soccerdad... BS. When the last time the left had any power in this country. You are truly amazing... The left effects things every day. Just because they don't hold a majority in Congress doesn't mean they don't weild some power still. Just watch the news once in a while...it's all there! Everything from banning the word "God" to higher gas prices... It's all on the left's shoulders. Surely you can see that?

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    Higher gas prices is the left's fault?

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    "Its all on the Lefts shoulders" Sounds like someones on a 24hr Fox feed. Thats what you must mean by "watching the news." Though you forgot to mention the war on Christmas. Do you guys ever hold yourselves accountable for anything ? What was the price of gas when your boy took office? Dont tell me, it's the tree-huggers faults. 9/11 we already know was all Clintion's fault. And "banning the word God" whatever the O'Reilly that means, is not anything anyone in the U.S will ever have to worry about; you cant go two blocks in any direction without running into a church. You've really gone around the bend havn't you fella?

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    soc - He's going to blame it on ANWR or some other Fox/Rush derived profundity.

    Re: Iraqi Insurgents Won't Accept Peace Deal (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    Everything from banning the word "God" to higher gas prices
    Yep, fearful georgie starting an illegal war on a ME country and refusing to do anything about CAFE standards or gouging ... yep, that's th e left's fault.
    The left effects things every day.
    Uhh, your boys own both houses of congress, the WH and the courts. Try looking in a mirror if you want to see why the country sucks.