The most controversial part of the plan, which is set to be released on Sunday, calls for amnesty for Iraqi insurgents who have killed American soldiers. This has already received mixed reaction in the United States. Yet, al-Maliki's proposal seeks to find a compromise with the forces that oppose the direction of the new Iraqi nationalism.
Newsweek goes to great pains to attempt to clarify that such an amnesty would not apply to 'terrorists', but the difference between 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' may be the hardest challenge for both governments, since these groups' purposes and methods often overlap.
This plan follows a series of secret negotiations over the past two months between seven insurgent groups, President Jalal Talabani and officials of the U.S. embassy. The insurgent groups involved are Sunnis but do not include foreign jihadis like al Qaeda and other terrorist factions who deliberately target civilians; those groups have always denounced any negotiations.
As has been reported, the foreign 'jihadis' comprise a very small percentage of the resistance but they are often the main focus of the Bush administration since they are mainly 'al-Quaeda' related. The insurgent groups are not quite as easy to pigeon hole and it's become well known that the Interior ministry was running death squads under its watch - complicating the situation. So, an agreement between the US and Iraqi governments on this issue may be difficult to come by.
Further, al-Maliki's government is seeking a timetable for coalition troop withdrawal. Yes, the 'T' word that so many US politicians love to hate and equate with 'cutting and running'. If Bush and the Republicans were wise, they'd accept a proposed timetable, but that would mean an embarassing surrender to the Democrats like Levin and Kerry who have been leading the charge to secure one. Bushco can wrangle its way out of this predicament only by stating that, ultimately, this decision was made by the Iraqis, but the public will know that if they coalesce they have been given a political slap in the face and the Dems would be wise to claim victory.
The fact that, according to Newsweek, the Iraqi government would also seek backing from the UN Security Council on its timetable plan will surely make John Bolton's head explode (not that that would be a bad thing).
The true question the Bush administration must face in all of this is how much freedom it will allow the new Iraqi government to have. Will it continue to hold the Iraqis by the throat, demanding that their democratically elected government do their bidding, or will they show the world that they are capable of letting go? That is the fragile tightrope the administration finds itself on and, while the world is watching, any missteps that indicate a further power grab will surely further diminish the US's standing in the world.
Update: Well, it seems that the Pentagon already had a plan for troop withdrawals.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.
This, after they've spent how long criticizing the Democrats for wanting a timetable? Hypocrites.
No comments:
Post a Comment