You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable
2005-11-22
With the Hizbollah attack in Israel, Ahmadinejad and the Iranian nuke program, and now this, the Islamists seem to be on the offensive. Brought to you by the Left's surrender lobby.
CAIRO, Egypt - Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance. The communique — finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday — condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens. The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.
The Jihadi platform follows:
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
Translation: The Kurd and Shia politicians have knuckled under to the Sunnis.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said. The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable. The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."
You gotta admit, it was a brilliant move on the Arab League's part to have the conference in Cairo, beyond the coalition's immediate control and where they could help their Arab Sunni brothers and use a little Arab-style persuasion on the Kurd and Shiites. The demands and threats could be made without any coalition observers to intervene. This is the sort of thing that the State Dept. is supposedly paid to anticipate and prevent. I hope that heads are rolling. Damn this is going to be a long war.
Posted by:11A5S

#10  Do you think he is screeching? I thought he was doing some meaningful Islam religious thingee. Oh. yeah same difference.
Posted by: Glemp Flineper4549   2005-11-22 20:58  

#9  RB needs a illustration of the year contest. That olde boy screeching is my favorite.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-11-22 17:59  

#8  I don't think any of the "insurgents" are going to take them up on this. This is just for Sunni face saving. The Sunni that want to be part of the government can say the the government is listening to their (bullshit) demands.

This is just the Iraqi "leadership" saying that at some point in the future the MNF will go. Arab BS talk restating the known facts.
Posted by: Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu   2005-11-22 15:29  

#7  Okay, this theory has been rolling around in my head since lunchtime so let me throw it out there.

First, assume that Izzat Ibrahim Al Douri really is getting his belly roasted in hell. Second, assume that the former Baathists have come to the conclusion that (1) Fighting Americans is a good way to live a short life, and (2) Zarqawi and the al Qaeda types are crazier than a shit-house rat.

Now: Given 1 and 2, maybe they have decided to enter into the political process and hang up the AK-47s. But if that's the case they need a face-saving way of surrendering -- otherwise it looks like the Americans beat them, which is intolerable. So, they go to the new Iraqi government and say, "we'll quit if you give us cover, and the best way to do that is to say 'hey, the Yanks have to go, eventually.'"

Baathists save face, new government gets a diplomatic victory, everybody wins but the al Qaeda types.

Whaddaya think?
Posted by: Jonathan   2005-11-22 15:05  

#6  institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens

Maybe this is part of the problem getting Iraq up and running. Saddam killed many of his people and there are millions of women and children awaiting the food rations the UN doled out. They have no means of providing for themselves and Islamic women have a bleak employment picture. They need to have settlers from the west come in to stabilize the situation as most of those who remain aren't capable of a self-sustaining government that must be in place before troops leave. It's a vicious cycle but the MM's will never let women have rights...might as well nuke 'em and get it over with :)
Posted by: Danielle   2005-11-22 12:59  

#5  this isnt a diplomatic defeat, it only called for a time table after the buildup of Iraqi forces. . . umm which will happen when the U.S. is done with its mission. I see this is a victory b/c atleast all the ethnic groups in Iraq are beginning to come together finally. The terrorists are losing... badly.
Posted by: bgrebel9   2005-11-22 12:22  

#4  Since I see this as a diplomatic defeat, and not a military setback, the questions that I would ask are

How will this be played in the Arab media?
How will this be played at Friday prayers?
How will this be portrayed on the Jihadi websites, CDs and cassettes?
What will be the reaction to this in Baath circles?
Will news of this have a positive or negative effect on funding?
What is the overall thrust of this communique? (Do communications in Arabic have precise meanings or are they always left open to many interpretations? What are the verbal cues that Arabic speakers use to tip off other Arabs whether a specific utterance is to be taken seriously or not?)

Those are the first order effects. As you begin to contemplate second and third order effects you will begin to see the military impact.
Posted by: 11A5S   2005-11-22 09:21  

#3  I wouldnt seat it. The Arab League is even more useless than the UN. They have been unable to declare terrorism bad for years now and Iraq aint goin to change that. I would take these words with two grains of salt kinda like one of the thousand resolutions against Isreal the UN has great for the UN to make a show to the other side but they dont actually do anything about it the grown ups just dont allow such. Resolutions are not worth more than toilet paper. The timetable pull out stuff I would say is a direct result of the LLL campain back home, I am scared by it I can just imagine over there where their freekin lives are on the line not tommorrow but today must scare the hell out of them. Not to mention the fact that the Shia leadership would go to the arab league to pander for support rather than Iran something I would fear more.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-11-22 09:08  

#2  On the Cairo conference and its final statement...

The preparatory Cairo conference for reconciliation ended with a final statement that came at the last minutes after there were doubts an agreement on one could be reached if not for the Arabic language that is pretty good at twisting and playing on the meanings of texts.

The conference itself is viewed as an accomplishment for the Arab League let alone reaching a final statement that satisfied all parties without much troubles.
In my opinion, the Iraqi parties had originally joined the meeting to show that they’re not against a national reconciliation or against what can solve the crisis in Iraq. Of course this does not apply to all the parties as with the presence of extreme trends on both ends of the spectrum, it was natural that a middle trend will emerge to approximate the extremes and this middle trend was born in Iraq and found its place in this conference and tried to deter the rivals from marginalizing each other in order to find a middle way.

The statement was decorated with a call to put a timetable for foreign troops withdrawal and this part was the focus of the talks while it is a quite technical issue that cannot be solved by Iraqi politicians as the final word will be in the hands of the elected government that is yet to come and this is the only entity that will have the right to speak on behalf of the Iraqi people.

We heard a similar sort of talks prior to January elections and many parties held the slogan of ending “the occupation” but after the elected representatives sat to figure out what to do most of them found that asking the troops to leave would be in no one’s interest so they found themselves asking the UN to let the troops stay for another couple of years instead of asking them to leave.
Again, this issue is a technical one and speeches mean almost nothing and I’m positive that whoever is to be elected next month will realize the complexity of the situation especially when it comes to building Iraqi forces capable of preserving security.

Some try to overlook regional and international balances and forget that Iraq is part of these balances and they even try to ignore the resolutions of the UN and Security Council forgetting that they also are part of this system which they’re going to rely on for one thing or another sooner or later.

What we actually need is to encourage the reasonable middle trend that weighs things by interests and logic, not emotions and mood and does not use a use that boring poetic language when discussing a technical task.

Anyway, I think this conference is going to change very little from the situation on the ground; those who endorse and practice violence do not really seek legitimacy from this or that conference.
But there are still a few good things that came out of this meeting as this is the first time since the fall of the past regime when the Arab League denounces Saddam’s regime opening the door for discrediting more dictatorships in the future.

Second there was a condemnation for media networks that were asked to lower their tone a bit and to stop saying things that might create hatred or encourage sectarian or ethnic differences and this call addressed both, Arabic and Iraqi media that is serving certain partisan interests.
Other than the above, nothing is worth mentioning and I feel that this conference isn’t going to make tomorrow different from yesterday.
I trust elections way more that I trust such events sponsored by a dying league. If we want to improve our conditions then we (Iraqis) must first think well before making our choice this time.

I say it again, those who claim they speak for all or most Iraqis and that troops withdrawal is a public demand should enter the election and wait for the results and when he wins, then he will have the right to say so because only then, he would be representing the people.

Posted by Mohammed @ 22:18
www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com
Posted by: doc   2005-11-22 08:24  

#1  institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens
To me this would include US, allied and Iraqi armed forces since who else is protecting Iraqi citizens? Still, it does suck that the shiites and Kurds gave in to the sunnis. How about a Kurdish state and a new shiite state in the south that includes a 40-km strip of eastern Soddy...
Posted by: Spot   2005-11-22 08:19  

00:00