|
Insurgents offer to halt attacks if timetable set for withdrawal
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: | Insurgents offer to halt attacks if timetable set for withdrawal
Updated 6/28/2006 4:09 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AP) — 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 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-Qaeda 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% 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
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...esty-plan_x.htm |
Very interesting if this is true and these groups actually do represent and control the majority of insurgent fighters in Iraq. It would mean that the insurgency isn't made up of small bands of unconnected or loosly connected fighters but actually organized fighting forces with chains of command. Though it looks like the groups are more representative of a particular section of Iraq. The deal's appeal is most certainly dependant upon exactly how much of the insurgency these groups represent. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Very interesting article and a few points stand out for me...
- The article says these groups "have largely shunned attacks on Iraqi civilians" but (from what I can gather) most attacks are against Iraqi civilians which suggests these groups might not represent the majority of the insurgency.
- Al-Qaida In Iraq seem only to be a faction amongst the insurgency, rather than the group incharge of the insurgency as the US has led us to believe.
- One would think that this would give the US a great opportunity to leave (altho it could never been known that they were withdrawing for this reason as that would send out the wrong signals). However, I don't believe America has any intentions of ever leaving - daft as that may sound, I'll explain...The blueprint for the neoconservative foreign policy (Rebuilding America’s Defenses - LINK - see page 14 onwards for the neoconservative's reccommendations on the repositioning of America's military around the world)
| quote: | Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam
pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even
should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. |
So, Saudi Arabian bases, as we know, are one of the main reasons America is the enemy of al-Qaida. But America needs bases in the Middle East and Iraq's a good a place as any, which makes me think the bases are there to stay (I think the Saudi bases were only supposed to be temporary but still remain after 15 years!!)
- The demands at the bottom of the article show who these groups really represent. They are the ex-Baathist members of Saddam's government/military. As I don't believe there is much of a link between the ex-Baathists (or general Saddam sympathisers) and the Islamists, I don't think that this offer is gonna make much difference to the situation in Iraq, no matter how genuine the groups that made it are, or even if America want to come to some kind of agreement with them
In answer to Josh's comments...
I may have overlooked it but I don't think the article suggests these groups represent the majority of the insurgency (and I have said above why I do not believe they do). So unfortunately, I am not going to get excited over this offer as if it will solve the Iraqi problem because it won't. However, what is extremely encouraging is that a section of the insurgency is now saying to themselves "this has gotta stop". If the reason for their thinking is that they've took such a hammering from the Americans that they simply do not have the resources to carry on the insurgency, then that suggests the anti-insurgency operations carried out by the coalition are slowely but surely working. But maybe they just want a slice of their power back? Maybe they just can't see any way they can win the battle? Either way, this offer shows that they want to give up and that is surely a good sign ... but don't get carried away, as I said, these look like the ex-Baathists and therefore NOT Islamists who think very very differently and their belief that they are doing God's work on Earth will ensure that "this has gotta stop" is something VERY unlikely to enter their heads any time soon... |
|
|
|
|
