Why is that my question?
Because the the Times Online (UK) has reported today that Prime Minister al-Maliki wants a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces as part of a comprehensive peace settlement with the insurgents:
The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.
The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.
It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of “de-Baathification” and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The deal, which has been seen by The Times, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda. It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups.
Presumably the involvement of US ambassador Khalizad is a sign that this plan has some support from within the administration, but does the President support it? Will he permit the withdrawal of our troops and the abandonment of those “permanent bases” in the Iraqi countryside, the ones we’ve paid billions to Halliburton and Bechtel, among others, to construct? Will he support a plan that in essence imports the ideas of his former rival, Senator John Kerry? Will he agree to an amnesty for insurgents who have attacked and killed US troops?
I guess we are about to find out.
I am thinking back to the ammendment offered Nelson (FL) that tells Bush to tell the Iraqi government not to grant amnesty to those Iraqis who killed American soldiers. The Republicans were for letting the Iraqis grant amnesty. Did all the Republican senators know about this peace plan and not tell the Democrats?
The shutdown of Baghdad today gives little hope to the peace plan – at least to me. Can negotiations settle the scores between the extreme Shia militia and the Sunni? Would the various leaders of Iraq be able to subdue these firefights to further their peace negotiations? Our soldiers being in the middle certainly doesn’t help nor do they stop these firefights.
Yet, the peace plan is a great start and I think we should start withdrawing our soldiers as Kerry and Feingold outlined in their ammendment – and give the Iraqi peace plan a start.
In the last week we have heard too many conflicting messages from the administration – haven’t we?
In the last week we have heard too many conflicting messages from the administration – haven’t we?
When you don’t know what you’re doing that’s what generally happens. Khalizad is one of the few sensible Bush admin. figures, and I assume that this is his baby. I also assume that he’s been left out hanging by himself to make it work.
I am going to assume your question is not rhetorical. The answer is, obviously, “never.”
Ah, the old monkey-trap!
How he’d love to escape, but he can’t bear to let go of the oil…
A rational U.S. government would be all over this like flies on shit. It’s his “October Surprise,” all wrapped up and ready to go (“So what if the second week of November it all goes to hell?” they’d think).
But BushCo? Maybe not so much…
Unless it was all just an excellent adventure for Halliburton & Co. to ride as far as they could. But now the calliope is winding down with a wheeze; time to get off and go look for the next excellent adventure…
US gunmen who have invaded their country and killed their families, destroyed their towns?
What sort of amnesty would the American people be interested in granting, oh, let’s say Iranians, should they happen to invade the US and go on an atrocity spree.
What sort of amnesty would you and your neighbors enjoy granting them?
If you read the article ducky it makes the amnesty issue a potential major sticking point for Bush. I see it as more likely the excuse for Bushco to bail if this ballon don’t get off the ground myself.
that very many Americans would understand how absurd and offensive the very idea sounds to much of the rest of the world.
And it is probably best to just leave it so, to try to explain it would be like trying to explain how absurd and offensive US policy is in general.
In fact, I did a whole article not too long ago, mostly on the subject of how it can’t be done, so I and anyone else so inclined should accept that and stop trying.
How exactly is it that the US can `agree to go’ after Prime Minister Al-Maliki says `get out’?
What can the US do?
Reinstate the Sunnis?
Turn its guns onto the Shias?
Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq have been forcefully, without the aid of the US govt, trying to turn a secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Islamic republic for over twenty years.
Thus, I think this is the showing of the handle of the sword, the sword which is about to be thrust into the back of the US.
It is about Allah, not loyalty to the USA.
A fundamentalist Islamic republic is the exact opposite of what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Khalizad, et al wrote about under the aegis of the PNAC, AEI, etc.
Prime Minister Al-Maliki is wiping his ass with PNAC’s Declaration of Principles.
It is a matter of time before Prime Minister Al-Maliki says: “US outta Iraq”.