Amnesty for Insurgents?
 

Linky.

Linky 2.

While to some degree, I can understand that the only way to really quell this insurgency, is to have the people stop being insurgents, but I'm fairly ticked off that the criteria for amnesty is for people who have only attacked US forces, while if they killed Iraqi forces they're as guilty as sin.

SWB

I can understand where they're coming from (though I do not support it).

US troops were invading their homeland. I know it was in good intentions, but it is only natural for anyone to defend where they live, what they own, who they cherish and so on.

And not releasing those insurgents who attacked Iraqi soldiers - well, that makes sense too. They attacked their own people, who were just trying to help them.

Sure the US was trying to help the Iraqi people as well (and in many ways they have), but like when people ask for a Do Not Resuscitate - you can't give people what they don't want. Or at least not force it upon them like a tonne of bricks.

I like the idea that this might occur, since it is a definite progress towards peace. That's what they need in Iraq - the encouragement of peace.

So to give amnesty for insurgents who only attacked US and the Coalitions troops. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. I know that the plan is in it's early stages, but the one thing that strikes me is that if they are granted amnesty, what about those insurgents who attack coalition troops after this occurs - can the cite precendence? Cause that'll be like dipping acid into a wound.

First, let's look at the insurgency from the Iraqi perspective.

You're an average Iraqi. You're getting a raw deal from Saddam but at least its not as bad as your Iranian neighbors living under the Shiite Ayatollah. One evening on Al Jazeera you see that that some fool has attacked the Americans. "I'm sure glad that wasn't us," you think, "because whoever did that is in for a world of hurt." After all, you remember what the American's did to your couintry ten years ago.

But about a year later you see on Al Jazeera that the Americans are coming to a theater of war near you anyway. And at this point maybe you're ok with that. Maybe you're not. Who knows?

But then some other guys show up. And now the Americans and Al Quaeda are having shootouts in your front yard. And even though the IED that blew your brother's legs off was intended to blow up Americans it wouldn't have been there if there weren't Americans to blow up.

And as if that wasn't scary enough your friend from work says to you, "Hey, if we have these free elections and all the Shiites vote, they'll win 'cause there's more of them than there are of us. Do you think they'll make us a theocracy like Iran?"

So you talk to some of your neighbors. "To heck with this mess," you say. "We'll get us some guns and run all of these foreigners out of here. This is our home not theirs." And now you are a Sunni insurgent.

Fast forward to the present. Al Quaeda in Iraq has taken a serious command-and-control hit (bye bye Al Zarqawi) and is declining in power. The American's are looking at a few months of mop-up followed by a graduated withdrawal. Homegrown Iraqi peacekeeping forces are finally beginning to take up the slack. So now that the fight against the real enemy (Al Quaeda) is succeeding, what's to be done about the home-defenders?

The amnesty proposal under discussion sends a message: "We understand your motives in defending your home from the foreigners. But if you were killing and robbing your fellow Iraqis then you weren't being noble; you were just being a criminal (or maybe you were part of Al Quaeda in Iraq, hmm?).

That this amnesty is from the ruling Shiite majority to the insurgent Sunni minority is also encouraging. There was a time when experts feared these groups would never be able to get along. The Shiite olive branch says they are willing to craft a secular state tolerant of the Sunnis (and yes, maybe even of the Kurds).

This softening of religious barriers may also indicate that the Iraqi people are exchanging religious and ethnic identity for national identity. People with an ethnic identity often find it easy to justify racial violence. People whose identity is wrapped up in their religion have nothing to lose from suicide bombings and sectarian violence. But people with a national identity have a lot to lose from any kind of violence and a lot to gain from cooperation with their neighbors.

So, yeah. I'm pretty galled that some people are going to get away with attacking American soldiers (whose presence in Iraq I have supported since before they went). But at the same time I have to admit that this is the best proposal I've seen to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

I think the US should not have gone to war so hastily, or at least so blindly. But cool, at least we've learned something after years of occupying a hostile nation.

But didn't we learn that lesson in Viet Nam? Wasn't this war propogated by a man who shirked his responsibility during that self-same mistake? Hm. That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

While I think that at some point, just to create some stability, this amnesty (or something much like it) has to happen. Just *NOT* while US forces are still on the ground.

Consider this scenario. An insurgent kills a US soldier yesterday & knows we're on to him. Today, he goes for amnesty. What then?

Also, what kind of future does it set for Iraq, is if the one thing that brings them all together is that they join together in their hatred of us?

SWB

They are afraid of civil war. In a sense it is worse to for the insurgents to kill other Iraqis than it is US soldiers. Now, that's only with cold logic.

This is somethign they pretty much just must do in order to get back on track. Are you aware of how many insurgents there are? They can not possibly just put them all to jail assuming they catch them all. There has to be a solution and the Iraqi goverment can make theirs as they see fit. That's just how it is.

People seem to be taking this as somekind of attack against the US, an appalling act designed to disrespect US soldiers (quite frankly, what respect do THEY the Iraqi people need to show to US soldiers, or most of them anyhow?). This is just a kind of solution offered to a big problem. Now the life of a US soldier is no less, but that is not the point here.

One thing you all need to keep in mind: Most of the insurgents ARN'T IRAQI, but filtering in from places like Syria. While I was in Iraq, Iraqi Army units were just starting to take over and handle their own operations, and the civilians have been assisting in locating weapons cashes. Hell, even some of the insurgents are getting the bright idea that it's not going to go well for them, that's what led to Zarqawi's fall.

I have to call some of your statements into question. Which if true, would suggest that either all the foreign insurgents are being killed outright (unlikely) or the percentage of foreign fighters has been overstated.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...insurgency.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_i...ign_insurgents

And while Zarqawi was outed, it was most likely for internal strife rather than anything to do with the status of the war. I mentioned this in the prior Zarqawi thread, but he wasn't on great terms with the rest of Al Queda, and he was either anti-Shite or Sunni, but I forget which. At any rate it, somebody likely didn't like him & outed him for that reason.

SWB

Well, I was just going off what the Intelligance guys I work with have reported.

And if there's internal strife, that's a good thing for us, as they'd be having to deal with their internal problems while dealing with us.

Actually, that's more of a bad thing... it makes it much harder to tell who's a legitimate Iraqi businessman and who's the next Osama-wannabe. Personally I'd rather have all of Iraq unified one way or the other.