Iraqi insurgents offer peace in return for US concessions
Yes I believe it.
markfromireland
Iraqi insurgents offer peace in return for US concessions
For the first time, Sunni insurgents disclose their conditions for ceasefire in Iraq
Published: 09 February 2007
For the first time, one of Iraq’s principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.
The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet - but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.
Al-Jeelani’s group, which also calls itself the “20th Revolution Brigades”, is the military wing of the original insurgent organisation that began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003. The statement is, therefore, of potentially great importance, although it clearly represents only the views of Sunni Muslim fighters.
Shia militias are nowhere mentioned. The demands include the cancellation of the entire Iraqi constitution - almost certainly because the document, in effect, awards oil-bearing areas of Iraq to Shia and Kurds, but not to the minority Sunni community. Yet the Sunnis remain Washington’s principal enemies in the Iraqi war.
Read in full: Iraqi insurgents offer peace in return for US concessions
A dialogue with the Sunnis will not help the Shia difficulties
The United States is stepping up the war in Iraq. For almost four years, it has been fighting the Iraqi Sunni community. Now it has started to confront the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, the nationalist Shia cleric who leads the powerful Mehdi Army militia.
It is a very dangerous strategy for the US. It risks alienating the Shia without gaining the support of the Sunni. It brings it into conflict with the democratically elected Iraqi government in Baghdad, whose views and interests are ignored by Washington.
US and Iraqi soldiers yesterday kicked in the door of the Iraqi deputy minister of health, Hakil al-Zamili, a Sadr supporter. He was led away in handcuffs, accused of being implicated in the deaths of several government officials in Diyala province, and siphoning off money to the Mehdi Army. Employees of the Health Ministry fled in panic as troops stormed their headquarters.
Read in full: A dialogue with the Sunnis will not help the Shia difficulties
View from America: Bush won’t cut a deal that tears up his one success
The offer of a ceasefire by one of the main Sunni insurgent groups will be received with interest in Washington. But there is scant chance it will be accepted by the Bush administration as a serious basis for a negotiated exit from Iraq - or that such talks are even practical amid the current chaos in the country.
Feelers between the two sides are not new. Over the past two years, as the depth and scope of the insurgency grew, reports surfaced of back-channel contacts between US military representatives and the insurgents - including the “1920 Revolution Brigade”, a wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement that is behind the latest offer.
Details of the talks, never officially confirmed by the US, were sketchy. But insurgent leaders were said to have been willing to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force, as the US forces pulled out. Then as now, however, Washington refused to accept anything resembling a fixed timetable for a pull-out.
Read in full: View from America: Bush won’t cut a deal that tears up his one success
After the disaster of Iraq, Bush turns his attention to Algeria
War, it is said, is God’s way of teaching Americans geography. As Iraq sinks into the mire, President Bush’s attention is turning to Algeria.
He is, we are told, reading Alistair Horne’s “A Savage War of Peace,” the definitive account of the French twentieth-century experience of fighting Muslim insurgents. It recounts in detail how the French tortured Algerian combatants and non-combatants alike and how despite winning the Battle or Algiers they eventually lost the war.
There are enough alarming comparison between the two conflicts: compromised officials, porous borders, a hated occupying force to keep President Bush glued to the weighty book.
Read in full: After the disaster of Iraq, Bush turns his attention to Algeria
No tag for this post.
I realize that it is just one group of Sunni’s. I also realize that their conditions would be unacceptable to Bush (but not to many of us), and probably the Shite majority and government. The item I thought most encouraging was the possibility of a UN force. We’ve discussed this before (i.e. MFI with great experience here) but is there not at least a glimmer of hope for the Iraqi people here?
I am Shia, most of my family are Sunni, who are you to tell us what is acceptable to us? What makes you think the green zone government is acceptable to the majority?
The majority - Shia and Sunni alike hate the collaborator government. The majority support resistance. We know who stood with us and it was not your vassals in the green zone. We know who loves Iraq and it is not your vassals in the green zone.
The UN? The UN who treated us as less than dogs during sanctions? The UN who fled at the first attack? The UN who have always done in Iraq what America and its western allies have told them to do?
Why would we trust them? They act in almost as much bad faith as the Americans.
A Muslim force would help - the OIC have offered. The UN? The UN are your vassals. Thieving vassals.
When your predator troops have been told by your predator government - run, and the last American predator is gone.
We can start to rebuild Iraq.
Mr. Laith,
I apologize if this is a redundant comment.
I’m not completely sure what your point is in your reply to my comment. You seem to feel that all Americans are complicit in the actions of our current government in invading and occupying your country. Many of us, but not enough, have done all we could to oppose Bush’s actions. I simply hoped that anything possible would transpire to bring peace to Iraq.
If a peacekeeping force is available from neighboring Muslim countries, all the better. I am a strong supporter of the U.N. and realize its limitations. Most of these are the result of the lack of American support at the U.N. though you seem to feel it is an arm of the U.S. Government.
I assumed, since you have a comment section, that you would welcome supportive comments. However, if you simply wish to vent your anger, and its your blog, then I’ll go away.
Mohammed’s making a good point. Most of the resistance is nationalist rather than sectarian per se. Few Iraqi trust western countries of institutions and who can blame them? But Mohammed’s well capable of arguing his own corner :-)
What I am saying is that we have no reason to trust Western institutions and Western dominated institutions. Let me deal with your reply:
Most Americans are complicit as are most westerners but in particular Americans - those who opposed and who actually did something about that opposition are not complicit.
I will try to put it into terms that I think a westerner might understand:
From studying beliefs of Westerners and questioning our host I believe that followers of the Prophet Jesus (PBUH) have a concept that they call “sin of omission” in other words failing to do something can be just as wrong or almost a wrong as doing something. If you see someone about to kill a child and you can prevent it, but instead you ignore it, you do not try to prevent that killing then you too have the blood of that child on your hands. Not as much as the child murderer but you do share in the guilt and the blame.
For that reason yes most Americans as citizens of the country that has raped mine repeatedly share the blame for what America is doing to my people and have my people’s blood on their hands.
I think also that they, and perhaps also you, should be honest enough to admit that they would have been perfectly happy to benefit from the rape of my people if that had gone well for America. But it did not go well for America. It went badly for America and is going to go worse yet.
Saddam was bad. The Americans and the collaborators in Iraq are worse. Their brutality and thieving have put the people of Irak where there is no option no choice but to fight back and to do whatever it takes whatever it takes to destroy American power in our land. That from what I can see is what most Americans who are unhappy about the war in Irak are unhappy about.
Their unhappiness comes from the fact that the resistance are winning. Your predator troops are learning what it feels like to be the prey. I have no pity for your troops, they are the enemy they came here prepared to kill my people and they have done so time and time again. Murder, rape, yet more murder, countless innocent Irakis slaughtered by Americans because the Americans wanted to slaughter them. This is also the cause of the various wars now being made in Irak.
More than that American unhappiness comes from the defeat of their predator army sent to rape our land and steal our resources. Their behavour and defeat has led to the contempt of the world at how their country has behaved. Their defeat has led to the lessening of American power.
I say that is good.
If America cannot be trusted to behave like a civilised country she deserves pain and grief. She is quick to force pain and grief on everyone else especially if those people are not white and live in a country with something America wants for herself and will not pay the honest price for it.
The defeat of America in Irak is a lesson from God.
BEHAVE!
You were warned by a great man. A true follower of the prophet Jesus (PBUH) called Martin Luther King.
Your people would be advised to listen to God.
God does not tell me to suffer injustices and attacks God tells me when somebody attacks my family then it is my DUTY to God to use violence on the attacker until they stop killing my family and destroying my home.
Let me now speak of peacebuilding troops:
Most of what badly informed westerners call “sectarian” warfare in Irak is different communities preparing to fight to ensure they are not wiped out when the American predator army is forced to leave.
I repeat - why would we trust the western dominated UN? Similarly why would we trust Saudi or Egyptian or Jordanian troops in our land? Their governments have helped America commit her crimes in Irak. Are we to trust them? Are we to trust the Iranians?
No - saying “trust the governments of our neighbours.” That is like saying that we should trust the jackal to behave better than the wolf.
So we need help. Best it comes from our Muslim brothers and best it comes from Muslims who will not be tempted to seek advantage for their country at the expense of mine. That means troops from places like Indonesia and Malaysia.
As to my words of anger - try living in my country for a time, try going to three hosptals and 4 morgues in search of your father as I did last weekend and then tell me not despise and hate your country your country and its people for what they have done to me and to mine
You are free to read or not as you choose. You are free to speak as you choose. So am I and I have done so.
As a last point. I have spoked to and replied to you in your language not in mine how many of your people would make even that small an effort?
Dairymaid says:
Most of what badly informed westerners call “sectarian” warfare in Irak is different communities preparing to fight to ensure they are not wiped out when the American predator army is forced to leave.
Mohammed-
Please…if you can stomach it…indulge another comment that may infuriate you.
The above quote is what, I believe, is confusing to the majority of Americans, who are totally uneducated about the politics and cultures of your country (and most other countries!) and thus rely on little sound bites from the government and the media to tell them what to think about Iraq.
The American media shows pictures of the dead from “sectarian violence,” but never gives any context. You made the above statement…but I admit I don’t quite understand…from your point of view, from whom are these “communities” protecting themselves and why?
Thank you for your patience.
Sorry. My above comment did not come through with the quote correctly highlighted. I tried, but then despite my superior math skills (heh), I somehow still couldn’t make it past the spambot filter for a time or two.
I will ask Saba Ali to do post he is more experienced in writing briefings in English than I