« Iran Week in Review from www.regimechangeiran.com | Main | Fallujah: The Music Video »
February 20, 2005
The insurgents are starting to negotiate
Power Line was the first to draw attention to these stories on the blogosphere this weekend. First, from Reuters, via Yahoo News:
U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq's Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon and other sources.Powerline notes:The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel" communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources told the magazine.
The so-called insurgency has long consisted of two main elements, the al Qaeda-linked terrorists, most of whom are not Iraqis, and Baathist Sunnis whose objectives are more narrowly political. It sounds as though some of the latter group, at least, are ready to throw in the towel. Their violence had two main strategic objectives: first, to prevent President Bush from being re-elected; second, to prevent the Iraqi election from going forward. Both failed. If they give up, the terrorists will be isolated and can much more easily be defeated.
Powerline also draws attention to another AP story, "Sunnis Seek Place in New Iraqi Government:"
Just west of the capital, U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces launched a joint operation to crack down on insurgents and terrorists in several troubled cities, the military said.This is significant. While hard-core former Ba'athists make up the secular side of the insurgency, they cannot operate, or maybe even exist, without the support, active, tacit or otherwise, of Sunni religious and political groups. If these groups see themselves as losing in the long run, they will pressure the military elements of the insurgency to continue negotiations.The operation was underway in several Euphrates River cities in Anbar province, including Heet, Baghdad, Hadithah and the provincial capital Ramadi, where authorities imposed a nighttime curfew, the military said.
Meanwhile, a powerful Sunni organization believed to have ties with the insurgents sought Sunday to condemn the weekend attacks that left nearly 100 Iraqis dead.
"We won't remain silent over those crimes which target the Iraqi people Sunnis or Shiites, Islamic or non-Islamic," Sheik Harith al-Dhari, of the Association Muslim Scholars, told a news conference.
Iraqis, he said, should unite "against those who are trying to incite hatred between us."
Wretchard at Belmont Club has his own take:
The available data suggests that the Sunni insurgents are still capable of showing strength within their strongholds and menacing traffic on the Baghdad streets. However, even within their bailiwicks, their capabilities are not decisive. They have been unable to impede or even delay the political goals set by the US as evidenced by their failure to stop the January 30 elections. Moreover, they are unable to project any significant combat power in Shi'ite and Kurdish areas. Faced with the loss of oil revenues, a growing Iraqi security force and the gradual depletion of their stored weapons and suffering a terrible attrition rate their relative power is irretrievably on the wane.A close examination of the original Time story, Talking with the Enemy is in order. Notable excerpts . . . first, it was the insurgents themselves that tipped off Time that they are talking:
An account of the secret meeting between the senior insurgent negotiator and the U.S. military officials was provided to TIME by the insurgent negotiator. He says two such meetings have taken place. While U.S. officials would not confirm the details of any specific meetings . . .Time does its best to leave things unclear as to who has initiated the negotiations, and whether it is a sign of weakness for either side. Is it the US that is war-weary?
Over the course of the war in Iraq, as the anti-U.S. resistance has grown in size and intensity, Administration officials have been steadfast in their refusal to negotiate with enemy fighters. But in recent months, the persistence of the fighting and signs of division in the ranks of the insurgency have prompted some U.S. officials to seek a political solution.Or is it the enemy?
But in interviews with TIME, senior Iraqi insurgent commanders said several "nationalist" rebel groups--composed predominantly of ex--military officers and what the Pentagon dubs "former regime elements"--have moved toward a strategy of "fight and negotiate." Although they have no immediate plans to halt attacks on U.S. troops, they say their aim is to establish a political identity that can represent disenfranchised Sunnis and eventually negotiate an end to the U.S. military's offensive in the Sunni triangle. Their model is Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, which ultimately earned the I.R.A. a role in the Northern Ireland peace process. "That's what we're working for, to have a political face appear from the battlefield, to unify the groups, to resist the aggressor and put our views to the people," says a battle commander in the upper tiers of the insurgency who asked to be identified by his nom de guerre, Abu Marwan. Another negotiator, called Abu Mohammed, told TIME, "Despite what has happened, the possibility for negotiation is still open."Whoever has begun the talks, it seems clear that side negotiating from a position of weakness is the enemy. Their forces are being attrited, their funds and weapons caches are being seized, and they have failed to break the will of the Americans.
From the enemy standpoint, there are two choices: they can continue on, effecting some level of instability in Baghdad and Anbar province, but having little power in either -- all the while fearing that the elected government will make an Iran-inspired theocratic shift, or, they can negotiate their way into participating in politics and take their chances that they might retain some minor semblance of their former power.
The key to the negotiations is the new Iraqi government. It will be the ultimate arbiter between a rejection of any claims of the Ba'athists, or an accomodation such that they will be included in the government.
What good is it to attempt to include them? Is this a failure? Does it mean we are floundering in our attempts to destroy the insurgency? These are certainly the narratives that will be spun in the press to explain such a move, but they are true not in the slightest. Many, many positives can come from some form of political inclusion of the Sunnis:
1. The legitimacy of the new government will increase dramatically.
2. By merely negotiating with the insurgents, the US and Iraqi government can gather information about its leadership and the centralized or decentralized nature of its organization. For example, if we request that some act be taken in good faith, whether or not the insurgent commander is able to guarantee it and then have it done indictates what he is in charge of vs what he is not.
3. If the Sunni/Ba'athist side of the insurgency can be included in the political process in some way -- some careful tightrope arrangement between the poles of having former Ba'athists actually in the government and that of having them only mildly associated with it and still controlling attacks by subordinates, then there is a great prize to be had: they can be co-opted and can give up information on the other side of the insugency. The other side is the "mayhem" side, the Zarqawi/Al Qaeda side, the religious side. What level of coordination does it possess with the Ba'athists? Can the Ba'athists give it up?
These are the questions that will drive negotiations and their outcome.
Meanwhile, the US is continuing to tighten the screws on the Sunni Triangle.
Iraqi, U.S. Forces Kick Off Operation River BlitzWhether this is a limited operation, or something more substantial like Plymouth Rock remains to be seen . . .The 1st Marine Division of the I Marine Expeditionary Force and Iraqi Security Forces kicked off Operation River Blitz, which includes a curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and other measures to enhance security in and around Ramadi.
“We were asked by the Iraqi government to increase our security operations in the city to locate, isolate and defeat anti-Iraqi forces and terrorists who are intent on preventing a peaceful transition of power between the Interim Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Transitional Government,” said Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force.
The security measures in and around the provincial capital are designed to ensure the safety of the populace by controlling access into the city. Access control points leading into the city will screen vehicles for terrorists and criminals as well as weapons, munitions and materials to produce improvised-explosive devices.
In conjunction with implementing the security measures in Ramadi, increased security operations also began in several cities along the Euphrates River, including the cities of Hit, Baghdadi and Hadithah.
Posted by Chester at February 20, 2005 10:29 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/614