Iraq's new PM offers amnesty to insurgents that attack US Troops

Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military
Leader Also Backs Talks With Resistance

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 15, 2006; A01

BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.

Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."

------------------

Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: "That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I," the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, "that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402432_pf.html

 

Republican senators invoke Confederacy, Mandela to defend amnesty for insurgents


Five Republican Senators today took to the chamber floor invoking Nelson Mandela, the Confederacy, and even the Japenese to defend an Iraqi government plan to grant amnesty for insurgents who have attacked United States troops, or civilians, RAW STORY has learned.

Iraqi leadership has proposed amnesty for insurgents as part of the foundation of a new government.

“If they bore arms against our people," said Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, "What's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What’s the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we’ve forgiven?”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) likened the granting of amnesty to former insurgents to efforts that earned Nelson Mandela a Nobel prize. "Forgiveness," he said, "has been a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa."

Senator Saxby Chambliss argued that forgiveness had already been at work in Iraq, asking: “Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?"

Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) each took to the floor to argue that there should be no argument--that debate over whether or not to condemn the actions of the new government were merely distractions from real debate.

“…Might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they’ve taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty?” asked McConnell.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senators_invoke_Confederacy_Mandela_to_defend_0615.html

 

The following is a compilation of Senate Republicans defending the proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops. These statements were made on the Senate floor this afternoon.


TED STEVENS - "IF THAT'S AMNESTY, I'M FOR IT:" "I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward... if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven?" - Sen. Ted Stevens


MCCONNELL SUGGESTED A RESOLUTION COMMENDING IRAQIS FOR GIVING TERRORISTS AMNESTY. "...might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty?" - Sen. Mitch McConnell


ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA'S PEACE EFFORTS. "Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa...Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture?" - Sen. Lamar Alexander


CORNYN: IRAQI AMNESTY DEBATE IS "A DISTRACTION." "It makes no sense for the United States Senate to shake its finger at the new government of Iraq and to criticize them... it really is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have." - Sen. John Cornyn


CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. "Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?" - Sen. Saxby Chambliss

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/

 

In today's WaPo --

In Washington, Senate Democrats offered a resolution Thursday demanding that President Bush repudiate the amnesty proposal regarding those who attacked American forces.

"It is shocking that the Iraqi prime minister is reportedly considering granting amnesty to insurgents who have killed U.S. troops," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "On the day we lost the 2,500th soldier in Iraq, the mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom. I call on President Bush to denounce this proposal immediately."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501267.html

 

Maliki's Master Plan

A national reconciliation plan for Iraq calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops and, controversially, amnesty for insurgents who attacked American and Iraqi soldiers.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Rod Nordland
Newsweek
Updated: 12:42 a.m. ET June 24, 2006

June 24, 2006 - A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq—but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers.

But in Iraq, even a senior military official in the U.S.-led coalition said Friday that the coalition might consider a timetable under certain circumstances. And the official was careful to point out that a distinction needs to be made between terrorists and the resistance.

NEWSWEEK has obtained a draft copy of the national reconciliation plan, and verified its contents with two Iraqi officials involved in the reconciliation process who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the plan's contents. Prime Minister Maliki will present the document to the National Assembly when it convenes on Sunday, and it's expected to be debated over the coming week. Maliki has made reconciliation and control of party militias the main emphasis of his new government. 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.

The distinction between insurgents and terrorists is one of the key principles in the document, and is in response to Sunni politicians' demands that the "national resistance" should not be punished for what they see as legitimate self-defense in attacks against a foreign occupying power. Principle No. 19 calls for "Recognizing the legitimacy of the national resistance and differentiating or separating it from terrorism" while "encouraging the national resistance to enroll in the political process and recognizing the necessity of the participation of the national resistance in the national reconciliation dialogue."

The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable. The problem is specifying a date, which the United States has rejected as playing into the insurgents' hands. But Othman didn't rule out that reconciliation negotiations called for in the plan might well lead to setting a date. "That will be a problem between the Iraqi government and the other side [the insurgents], and we will see how it goes. It's not very clear yet."


The senior coalition military official, who agreed to discuss this subject with NEWSWEEK and The Times of London on the condition of anonymity, notably did not outright rule out the idea of a date. "One of the advantages of a timetable—all of a sudden there is a date which is a much more explicit thing than an abstract condition," he said. "That's the sort of assurance that [the Sunnis] are looking for."

"Does that mean the subject of a date is up for negotiation?" he was asked. "I think that if men of goodwill sit down together and exchange ideas, which might be defined either by a timetable or by ... sets of conditions, there must be a capacity to find common ground," the official said.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, in a recent interview with NEWSWEEK referred to a "conditions-driven roadmap" rather than a timetable. Officially, the U.S. position is that coalition troops would leave as soon as Iraqi government officials say they're able to handle their own security, which leaves some room for diplomatic wiggle if the Iraqis declare their own intended timetable.

Equally contentious from the U.S. point of view is the idea of granting amnesty to insurgents who have attacked and killed American soldiers. That is almost taken as a given by Iraqi negotiators, however. The draft plan calls for the release of all security detainees being held without charges in the country, estimated at as many as 14,000, going far beyond Maliki's announcement two weeks ago that he would be releasing 2,500 such detainees. In addition, the draft plan suggests forming a committee to decide on release of those convicted of crimes already. In both cases, those convicted of common crimes or of terrorism would be exempted from the amnesty.

The devil will likely be in the details. Everyone agrees for instance that a bomb set off in a mosque is terrorism. But if a roadside bomb is set off targeting soldiers, but killing innocent bystanders—is that resistance, or terrorism? "A lot will depend on the exact wording," says Othman.

Maliki's reconciliation plan will undoubtedly be the subject of protracted discussions, and not everyone in the Iraqi government is pleased with it. The document also calls for bringing militias and "death squads" under control—a provision which the powerful Shia party, SCIRI, is not happy with, because it effectively equates militias with the insurgents. Maliki is also Shia but from the Dawa party. And Sunnis, for their part, are reluctant to renounce the insurgency when they are still threatened by Shia militias, and by Shia-dominated police. "The Sunnis have only one card to play, the insurgency," says the senior coalition official. "They don't have enough population and they're not sitting on any of the resources. Therefore their political identity is almost entirely defined by the insurgency."

Breaking that Shia/Sunni impasse won't be easy. But as the U.S. ambassador says, "Every war must come to an end," and few on any side in Iraq any longer believe they can kill their way to peace. The only alternative is to try to talk their way there.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/

 

Iraq plan part of grand strategy

By Paul Reynolds


The "reconciliation" plan announced on Sunday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is part of a grand strategy by the Bush administration to stabilise Iraq - or to stabilise the perception of Iraq - in advance of the mid-term elections for Congress in November.

Other parts of the plan are an insistence that democracy has arrived in Iraq and must be supported, a refusal to set any date or timetable for a total withdrawal of US troops (presented as a weakness), yet with a suggestion that a reduction might start soon as the effort to transfer responsibility to Iraqi forces gathers pace.

The Maliki plan is obviously an important part of this strategy, and for Iraqis far more important than whatever effect it might or might not have on the chances of the Republicans holding onto both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the US Congress.

Its chances of success cannot be easily estimated at the moment. It has been presented in broad outline only and some of its terms, over the extent of the amnesty for example, are vague.

Divide and conquer

Mr Maliki said it would be offered to "those who did not take part in criminal and terrorist acts and war crimes and crimes against humanity".

It is designed to appeal to the Iraqi insurgents who are also nationalists and to drive a wedge between them and the Islamists whose vision for Iraq goes back to the Middle Ages and the recreation of the Caliphate that extended Islamic control across the Middle East.

The Islamists -followers of the recently killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and of Osama bin Laden - are not open to negotiation.

They view not only the Americans and other foreign forces as "crusaders" but the Iraqi government as lackeys and the majority Shia population as an enemy. Amnesties would not interest them.

The main weakness of the plan at first reading is that it does not set a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign troops.

This is what really interests the nationalist insurgents - yet it is the very thing that the plan could not offer.

Instead the parliament is to be asked to set a date for the assumption of Iraq security control. That could be some time away.

The plan could not offer a timetable or deadline for withdrawal because the avoidance of such a deadline has become absolutely central to the selling of the Iraq strategy by the Bush administration in the gathering mid-term election campaign.

The administration is having some success is presenting Iraq as a test of US willpower and strength.

It has just seen off a double-headed effort by some Democrats in the Senate to get a (non-binding) resolution either calling for a partial "redeployment" plus a new "plan" or (proposed by John Kerry) the start of withdrawal by the end of this year to be completed by July next year.

Exit strategy?

The Vice-President Dick Cheney, so often the articulator of the policy in its purest form, put the administration's position in an interview with CNN's senior political correspondent John King.

The Zarqawi types that have been active in Iraq are betting that ultimately they can break the United States' will
Dick Cheney

"The worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting.

"And no matter how you carve it, you can call it anything you want, but basically it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans don't have the stomach for this fight," he said.

"What the Democrats are suggesting basically you can call it withdrawal, you can call it redeployment, whatever you want to call it, basically it's - in effect, validates the terrorist strategy.

"You got to remember that the Osama bin Laden types, the al-Qaeda types, the Zarqawi types that have been active in Iraq are betting that ultimately they can break the United States' will."

Mr Cheney's linking of the war in Iraq to Mr Bush's wider war on terrorism is quite a powerful political message in an election year.

But in order to appeal to those Americans who do worry about the open-ended commitment to Iraq, word is emerging from US sources that the general in charge in Iraq, George Casey, has drawn up a proposal under which there would be, in the words of the New York Times, "sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September".

The Casey plan would involve reducing the number of combat brigades (each brigade having about 3,500 troops) from 14 to 5 or 6 by the end of next year.

The combined strategy - reconciliation and resolution yet with the hint of a substantive withdrawal - is what Mr Bush hopes will pull his party through in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5115064.stm