Peace deal offers Iraq insurgents an amnesty

UK Times ^ | 6/23/06 | Ned Parker in Baghdad and Tom Baldwin

[bnelson44]

THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war. 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.

[nmh]

Yeah, you can really TRUST insurgents!

LOL!!!

Are these people for real?

[bnelson44]

THE OFFER (pretty much what we heard before)

A schedule for coalition forces to withdraw

General amnesty for prisoners “who have not shed innocent Iraqis’ blood”

A halt to “anti-terrorist operations” by coalition forces in insurgent areas

A review of the process of de-Baathification and of financial compensation to sacked civil servants from the Saddam regime

[Rembrandt]

This has to be pure Bravo Sierra!

[inkling]

An amnesty plan is how Iraq breaks the remnants of the insurgency in two. Half cry "uncle," then they turn in the half still fighting. It sows big-time distrust in the enemy as each wonders who will rat out whom. Divide and conquer.

This is similar to a mafia boss getting a sweetheart deal for turning state evidence against his former associates.

[SteveMcKing]

If someone had beheaded a family memeber, any good relative would only use such an offer to fake them out before getting revenge.

[Spktyr]

The proper flipside to this should be, "If you don't take the amnesty, we won't send you to jail. We'll just kill you. Choose wisely."

[downtownconservative]

"...a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war."

I guess this half-hearted, half-baked, half-cry-uncle (nice_credit to inkling) is it then. If this fails, that's it. It's a "last-ditch effort" to save Iraq from the "brink"./s If only these writers could stress truth over drama. Sheesh!

[StJacques]

". . . It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. . . ."

If I was a Sunni insurgent, I would insist upon this as a precondition for completing. As an American even I don't believe it.

[bnelson44]

Captain Ed has commentary:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007287.php

[1066AD]

As the article implies, the devil will be in the details but something like this is the only way the killing will ever have a chance of ending with some hope going forward.

[Just A Nobody]

Do you know if there is ANY truth to this?

The Government will promise a finite,
1. UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq;
2. a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds;
3. an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops;
4. and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

UN approved??? WTH?
If we are to halt ops against "strongholds" there will be no reason to be there. I can't/won't comment on the rest!

[syriacus]

I know that the US government granted amnesty a number of times, during and after the Civil War, but I'm not so sure I'd trust any amnesty granted to me by the Iraqi government.

Saddam "forgave" his sons-in-law for defecting; then, when they returned to Iraq, declared them traitors before they were killed. Other Arabs have been equally treacherous, pretending to forgive someone they later killed.

[weegee]

So if the US "pulls out", will the UN set up camp to "keep the peace"? And use US troops (under their blue and white flag)?

[Just A Nobody]

What did the UN do to help in the first place??

Why should they be there?

The UN "keeping the peace"? I laugh at that!!!

Our troops did not VOLUNTEER to be a force for the UN! If our gov't. wants to see recruitment drop to zero, put them in light blue helmets!

[weegee]

Oh I agree, the UN is a miserable failure. And their offices were blown up in Iraq by these same "insurgents".

But they are trying to intervene and "negotiate" the peace as John Kerry did when he met with Vietnamese officials in France.

[Just A Nobody]

But they are trying to intervene and "negotiate" the peace as John Kerry did when he met with Vietnamese officials in France.

I have not had nearly enough coffee.....would you explain this statement to me. Do/did you approve of sKerry negotiating "peace" with the NV?

[weegee]

Not at all, he had no authority to go over and intervene. Neither does the UN. Odd that he engaged in such behavior and yet most Americans are oblivious to what a Presidential candidate had done in the war.

All such maneuvers do is provide aid and comfort to the enemy. There is absolutely NO valid argument for the actions of the enemy. It would be like negotiating with the Nazis and leaving them power.

[Just A Nobody]

Okay thanks! I was relatively sure we were on the same page...just needed verification.

[Marine_Uncle]

Perhaps it is best to wait for more articles to make their way into our hands. For those who would object to any UN involvment, I would only say, the US and coalition invaded Iraq based on UN resolutions. We cannot ignore this fact, though many could put up good arguments that show the UN in this process from day one in essence being their usual useless selves.
For those of us that feel the US has the right to run Iraq, I would say, I symphasize but the realities lay elsewhere.
The reality all along was the attempt to get the Iraqi people to in a majority accept some form of democracy, and support a democratically elected government that would put an end to the insurgency in all it's evil forms.
Many of us fully or in part understand the many ramifications such a process would envelope.
Unlike in Japan in 1945, the US cannot simply force a form of constitution on the vanquished.
If the US wants to find an intack IG in say four years that actually continues to move forward, rebuilding the obviously broken infrastructure, become a partner in future ME stability as well as a long term partner in the WOT, and a future trading partner mostly revolving around oil and gas, we are going to have to play the give and take routine regardless of how painful the options are.
For those that from day one felt (with often good justifications based on historical data) Iraq would never see a budding democracy develop. Hats off to you. I sense those of us that opposed your appearance of total gloom in their hearts felt you just might be right.
Now it appears we have reached the juncture in time where we must cut the tethers.
The coalition lead by the USA has accomplished IMHO all it had set out to do (at least from a public disclouser point of view). We have positioned Iraq to regain it's sovereign state and pride. It is up to the government of Iraq to now carry the ball.
We cannot expect gratitude by perhaps many elected Iraqi officials to supersed what they must attempt to end the insurgency. We opened the door in this country for democracy to take hold. Now we, like parents, must sit by and watch how our offspring manage those principals we with much sacrifice and often heartache instilled in them.

[Valin]

How does this compare with the Afghan amnesty plan?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Hey!

Why not just give them the 72 virgins NOW, in this life?

/sarcasm

[Valin]

FYI (Note the date)
Afghanistan: Karzai Confirms Amnesty Offer Is For All Willing Afghans
By Ron Synovitz
Tuesday, May 10, 2005

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/7b099d96-969a-4c2c-837e-f12bc916b9f2.html

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed that all Afghan militants -- including the leader of the former Taliban regime -- are technically eligible for an amnesty offer. But Karzai says he does not expect the most senior Taliban officials or others allied with Al-Qaeda to take up the offer. Karzai made the remarks today in Strasbourg after addressing the European Parliament. He was speaking one day after an announcement on the amnesty by Sebaghatullah Mojadeddi, the head of Afghanistan's peace and reconciliation commission.


Prague, 10 May 2005 (RFE/RL) -- In the past, Afghan President Hamid Karzai had stressed that an amnesty offer for Taliban fighters who lay down their weapons was available only to rank-and-file militants.
Karzai had ruled out any amnesty for Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, renegade Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, or about 150 other hard-core Islamic fighters that Kabul considers to be terrorists.

But today, Karzai explained to journalists in Strasbourg why the head of Afghanistan's peace and reconciliation commission, Sebaghatullah Mojadeddi, now says Mullah Omar and Hekmatyar are eligible for the amnesty.

"That offer is there to all. Those who are part of Al-Qaeda, those who are part of terrorism, they will not come anyway because there is no place for them. But anybody that wants to move away from being used against our country and wants to live a legitimate life in Afghanistan is welcome. And that is what Professor Mojadeddi has said," Karzai said.

Karzai explained that Mojadeddi's commission is studying ways to bring peace and stability to all of Afghanistan.

"There is an independent commission in Afghanistan headed by a very senior [and] a very respected Afghan gentleman -- Professor Mojadeddi -- to find out ways of strengthening peace in Afghanistan, [of] strengthening stability in Afghanistan. He is working together with a commission of elders and clergy and lawyers from different parts of the country," Karzai said.

Karzai did not mention Mullah Omar or Hekmatyar by name. But he said the ultimate goal of the amnesty program is to give all willing Afghans a chance to join in a peaceful political process.

"The effort is to bring all those Afghans who are, for any reason, away from the country -- for reasons of fear, for whatever the reason may be. Afghanistan is the home of all Afghans, and those who don't want to fight, those who don't want to be used by outside elements against their own country, are welcome to participate as civilians in Afghanistan under the laws of the country," Karzai said.

Mojadeddi said in Kabul yesterday that the Afghan government's policy has changed regarding the eligibility of Mullah Omar and Hekmatyar for the amnesty.

"If the government had announced something in the past regarding Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar, it was the policy of the past. The policy is changing every day. When I accepted the leadership of this commission, it was on the basis of its independence. The peace that we want is for all. There is no exception. It doesn't matter who belongs to Hekmatyar's faction or the Taliban or other groups that may be dissatisfied or afraid to come back to Afghanistan. So our call is general and includes everyone," Mojadeddi said.

Mojadeddi said armed militants will be accepted for the amnesty provided they lay down their weapons, accept Afghanistan's new constitution, and obey the decrees of Karzai's government. He said Mullah Omar and Hekmatyar should be given time to discuss and think about the offer.

Mojadeddi also said his commission has independent powers to decide who is eligible for the amnesty. He said 50 to 60 militants have approached the government and met the conditions for joining the reconciliation program. They include former Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, as well as members of Hekmatyar's Islamist faction.

"With respect to Mr. Hekmatyar, currently about 40 or 50 of his commanders and members of his leadership council already have joined us. They've been with us for a year. Even during the presidential election [in October 2004], they helped a lot. And they are ready to help in the next elections. They are with us," Mojadeddi said.

A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, Colonel James Yonts, suggested to "The New York Times" that an amnesty for Mullah Omar is out of the question.

While not specifically mentioning the Taliban leader, Yonts said all individuals guilty of terrorism and other serious crimes will not be allowed to join in the amnesty. Yonts said all candidates for the amnesty will be screened by the National Security Council and intelligence officers.

Washington is offering a $10 million bounty for Mullah Omar because of his role in sheltering Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for five years before the attacks of 11 September 2001.

American military commanders have said that Hekmatyar is also wanted in connection with terrorist attacks against U.S. forces.

[bnelson44]

Yes, they have been working on this for awhile. It will be interested to see who takes them up on the offer and who does not.

[Valin]

Yes there have been a number who have taken the Amnesty.
The point is some here seem to be coming down with a terminal case of the vapors over this.

[Marine_Uncle]

Looks like both countries are seeking methods to end the bloodshed and establish the rule of law under central governments. It is so easy to fizz and moan about how this or that could be done differently. The key thing to me is both these budding democratic nations are attempting under extreme difficult situations to move toward stabilized governments that will work with the western world for many years to come.
I say. Give them a little credit where due. Both countries are slowly moving forward with some positive signs.
Let us not forget how we raved on about Jaffari having to be replaced along with his immediate ministers.
it came to past, even though many failed to see the vision as possible. The US constitution took some ten years to be fully ratified and accepted by the populace (aheeemmm, somewhat). One thing I am certain will not happen is for the US to withdraw it's military influence from either country. To do so IMHO would be very very bad.
We need these two countries as platforms to establish a long time presence. Both countries need to get continued military support, training, and rearmed by the US.
Iran and their big daddy, Russian must be confined in what they can pull off in the region. And we must continue to show the Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAI, Jordan, perhaps someday Yemen and Oman etc., that we shall partner with them, help them, to create a stabilized area, and in return receive equal or greater cooperation to eliminate radicalized Islam from having any safe havens. Iran like North Korea can be contained under the right circumstances. We have little alternative in the reality of things.