| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Iraq Amnesty Offer Upsets U.S. Lawmakers |
| 2006-06-26 |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #23 Let's give it a try. We can come back and kill them later if necessary. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-06-26 17:45 |
| #22 And you can bet that burning the Al-Q contacts, along with any holdouts, will be a big part of the amnesty. The Border War terrorists in the Civil War were included in the overall amnesty, as long as you did not have direct witnesses to an atrocity pointing out specific individuals. Of course, that is how we got so many of our bandits in the Wild West - Jesse James and the Youngers for example. And once again, most of the "U.S. lawmakers" objecting to this have been impeding the conduct of the war, and their major solution is for us to simply pullout and betray our Iraqi allies. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-06-26 17:02 |
| #21 'Hawk, appreciate you getting my back there. Jules, I understand what you're saying. However, if Iraq is to be a free country, the Iraqis have to own their problems and own the solutions, so to speak. If they make a deal with some of the bad guys to let them live if they quit the bad-guy business, it's their country and they get to do that. Do note, too, that nobody's making an offer like this to al-Q. In fact, if the Sunnis take the deal, I expect they'll burn their al-Q contacts big time. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-06-26 15:50 |
| #20 LH is right (and a long diatribe against the Left's inability to do this avoided). It's not enough to criticize, you must present an alternative course of action (and defend it). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-26 15:44 |
| #19 "Are you honestly saying that you cannot see a difference between confederate soldiers and Iraqi "insurgents" (Baathist or otherwise)? " Why do you say Baathist or otherwise? Youre confounding the very distinction that is at issue here. SOME of the insurgents in Iraq are terrorists, who deliberately target civilians,etc - and, not coincidentally, are dedicated supporters of AQ. Others are principally conducting a more traditional insurgency, attacking infrastructure and soldiers. Their insurgency is ILLEGAL and WRONG and BASED on wrong ideas - which is also the way I see the Confederate cause. But thats NOT a reason to not allow them amnesty if they surrender. "And do all those "insurgents" you'd like to see released fit neatly into a "guerilla" category?" Theres not a particular group that Id LIKE to see receive amnesty. I merely acknowledge that many will be amnestied as part of a deal, and that its quite reasonable that the govt of Iraq do that. Will there be grey areas, and difficult cases? Of course, and those will have to be negotiated. BTW, Im not sure the same terms will apply to those currently in custody (and thus suubject to release) as to those in the field. "If Israel released ALL Palestinian prisoners who renounced violence," Uh, we're not talking about Iraqis who merely renounce violence, but those who never engaged in terrorist violence against civilians. A distinction you keep missing. "and it took 2 years or more to get a Palestinian state," Of course Maliki is not proposing a Sunni Arab state, or a Baathist state. "o you imagine that those released Palestinians would suddenly give up the ghost and become little Gandhis in the meantime?" You dont have to be a gandi to live in peaceful society. "they of course would return, just as these insurgents will, since we're offering impunity, to violence." I dont know why you assume that someone who gets amnesty as part of a surrender deal gets a get out of jail free pass for life. Again, Grant let the confederate soldiers return to their homes, ON CONDITION that they not take up arms against the union again. If they did take up arms again, they were subject to arrest. The same would hold in Iraq. "I hope it will have to be you to explain to grieving survivors of American soldiers the distinction of protection for civilian Iraqis. " I would merely point out to them that Americans have been killed by Japanese and Germans, and yet we let Japanese and German soldiers go at the end of the war. This is a necessary step to achieve the GOAL US soldiers faught for. In any case, I dont hear the families making the case, I hear politicians trying to stir something up. "Go ahead and stand up for the release of the insurgents. I honor what our men and women are fighting for, and will not stand up for those who murder them because it is expedient. " You make no distinction between fighting a war, and murder? And what exactly do you think they are fighting for, if not for a stable and democratic Iraq? Which is not possible if we dont let the Iraqis make the deals they have to make. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-26 15:40 |
| #18 Of course consequences for future insurgents in Iraq will be out of US control, in the same way that consequences for insurgents in Algeria, or Nigeria, or Thailand, or Sri Lanka, or wherever are out of US control (IE we can apply pressure, when its important to our interests, but we arent sovereign there) Unless you expected us to make Iraq a colony, what alternative is there? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-26 15:26 |
| #17 Mike-Even if what you are saying is true now, once the Iraqi government really is "fully in control", consequences for future insurgents will be out of our control, won't it? |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-06-26 15:15 |
| #16 I think in this context, "amnesty" is a synonym for "surrender and renounce the insurgency on condition I'm not prosecuted for past offenses." That's the same deal Robert E. Lee got at Appomattox. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-06-26 15:13 |
| #15 LH-Are you honestly saying that you cannot see a difference between confederate soldiers and Iraqi "insurgents" (Baathist or otherwise)? And do all those "insurgents" you'd like to see released fit neatly into a "guerilla" category? If Israel released ALL Palestinian prisoners who renounced violence, and it took 2 years or more to get a Palestinian state, do you imagine that those released Palestinians would suddenly give up the ghost and become little Gandhis in the meantime? They of course would return, just as these insurgents will, since we're offering impunity, to violence. I hope it will have to be you to explain to grieving survivors of American soldiers the distinction of protection for civilian Iraqis. Go ahead and stand up for the release of the insurgents. I honor what our men and women are fighting for, and will not stand up for those who murder them because it is expedient. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-06-26 15:13 |
| #14 Interesting that they are lawmakers, not politicians. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 14:37 |
| #13 Malike excluded those whove killed civilians. How is a Baathist who killed American or Iraqi troops different from a Confederate who killed American troops? The distinction that excludes Hamas terrorists is that theyve killed Israeli civilians. Hamasniks whove attacked Israel soldiers might well be considered for release as part of a deal. Israel released arab POWS after every war. OBL of course engineered the deaths thousands of CIVILIANS. Its usually our enemies who confuse the difference between terror and guerilla war. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-26 14:28 |
| #12 Equating confederate soldiers and jihadis may be a stretch, LH. Unfortunately, I fear your thinking may win the day. So why not make a deal with anyone, over anything? Hamas-sure, keep killing Jews, we'll release all captured Palestinians. OBL-him, too, just pull off the dogs, because no cause is too despicable if peace is the prize. Ends justifies the means, and all that... It is all part of our great inability, learned from our "betters" in Europe, to name an enemy an enemy. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-06-26 13:17 |
| #11 #2. Yes, but those were conventional conflicts, by and large. An insurgency, especially one that is as divided in multiple groupings as the Iraqi insurgency, simply doesnt end that neatly. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-26 12:51 |
| #10 "it puts forth the notion that the insurgents are morally justified in "resisting" the people who liberated Iraq." did amnesty for confederate soldiers put forth the notion that the rebellion was morally justified? Of course not. It merely said that it was not expedient to prosecute them. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-26 12:50 |
| #9 splitting up insurgents, and getting some to surrender, is an essential part of any counter insurgency strategy. I dont know how you can get the Baathist insurgents to surrender, if youre threatening to prosecute any insurgent whos planted an IED trying to attack US or Iraqi soldiers. Maliki's offer (though it may be refined, will still include something that looks like whats been described, I expect) is the logical thing to do in the situation. And of course it would only apply to those groups who take the deal, and who stop fighting - it would give no blank check to anyone else, and wouldnt effect the legal status of anyone who keeps fighting against the govt (and US troops) after the deal is done. The congressmen who are opposing this are not thinking to clearly. The Dems who are opposing it, like Levin and Feingold, are engaging in rank cynicism. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-26 12:48 |
| #8 We're there for 60 years. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 12:35 |
| #7 Set aside for a moment the question of "insurgents" torturing and killing in the most barbaric way our soldiers (which to me is reason enough to reject this notion). Let's say this amnesty goes through. We're there for another how long, 1 1/2 years, 2 years? Amnesty will effectively put in place immunity for these savages in the future (contrary to the fine print), because it puts forth the notion that the insurgents are morally justified in "resisting" the people who liberated Iraq. So our boys will continue to lose arms, legs, eyes, heads month after month, while pouring out sweat and blood to help Iraq recover, while insurgents, who have world-class inferiority complexes and rage management issues, continue to murder the very folks that brought them freedom from the Saddam they griped about for so long. Amnesty should only occur if we were to withdraw forces immediately. Otherwise, we are sanctioning the sacrifice of our soldiers on the altar of Middle Eastern "dignity" and helping rebuild a country that is, at the minimum, ungrateful for those our sacrifices. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-06-26 12:21 |
| #6 I agree w/Sarge. An Iraqi call now. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-06-26 12:10 |
| #5 At first I was against this but after some thought I think it is a step in the right direction. If granting amnesty further diminishes the pool of insurgents then I can’t really see a downside. Sure there might be some guys responsible for attacking our guys but if they are in essence “giving up” is that not a definition of victory? Also this needs to be purely an Iraqi decision and our esteemed group of useful idiots (Congress) needs to keep its nose out. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-06-26 11:48 |
| #4 We didn't hunt down and kill all the natives here in America who participated in various fights, shootouts, and 'wars' either. While the words sometime said one thing [The only good indian...], in practice, the end game was to isolate them enough so they wouldn't be a hazard or threat to anyone else without extermination. |
| Posted by: Flomoling Snineque4791 2006-06-26 09:18 |
| #3 Those so-called "lawmakers" (read whiners) are the same ones who wanted to absorb Saddam's military rather than disband it. Hypocrites all |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-06-26 08:58 |
| #2 I'll respectfully take issue with your comparison Glenmore. With regard to the great unpleasantness and WWII, peace documents had been signed and insurgent activities were not nearly as significant. Northern occupation forces in the South were unpopular, but most of the fighting had ended. There were a few Japanese infantry holdouts in the Pacific in the 1950's thru the 1970's, but they were quick to retire and assimilate once they'd been given the official news. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-26 07:46 |
| #1 Sorry guys, it's not our call whether the Iraqi government grants amnesty or not. Besides, there's all sorts of historical precedent for amnesty - US Civil War, for one, and that war had a whole lot more killing in it. World War II for another - and it had even more killing. |
| Posted by: glenmore 2006-06-26 07:32 |