« Prairie Pundit Review of Cobra II | Main | A late-night verse from the bard »

June 23, 2006

The Iraqi Peace Deal

Very late night thoughts of the just-reported Iraqi peace deal (see here):

1. The source: The Times nailed another recent event way in advance: the large-scale security operation in Baghdad. They called that several months ago and were correct that it would occur in the summer. They seem to have good sources inside the parties that would be involved in the negotiations.

2. The negotiations: There's a deal and then there's a deal. How close is this to getting done? Have confidence-building measures already been performed? Could the appointments of the Interior and Defense ministers be a part of that process? Could Zarqawi's death have been part of the process? The two happened on the same day! That has bothered me ever since . . .

3. The terms: The Times article states,

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.
It's never good to believe the first report. This one implies that the US will admit ongoing human rights violations. It also implies that the UN has somehow given sanction already to an existing withdrawal plan. Neither of these seem like concessions the US would be willing to make. FInally, the article states in a later point "A halt to “anti-terrorist operations” by coalition forces in insurgent areas" as being another term. What exactly does that mean? It seems way too broad.

My guess is that the agreement is much more detailed and some of these details are incorrect as reported.

4. Enforcement: The deal involves "seven Sunni insurgent groups". Is that a significant enough portion of the insurgency to really offer a meaningful end to violence? Do we have good documentation of their capabilities (see confidence-building measures above)? And, will they act against the remaining elements of the insurgency, whether Ba'athists, criminals, or Al Qaeda? This would be a must, no?

5. Effects: Wow. I think the degree to which this will be good for Bush will depend on whether Iraqis who've killed Americans are given amnesty and how that works out.

This would be bad for Iran, not only because they'll lose a little more on their bid for influence, but because the US will soon be in a position to right-face the whole force and head east (figuratively).

The Left will still be the Left, but it won't win in November. And if the whole thing goes through more or less as declared by the Times -- which says it has seen the documents -- then Zalmay Khalilzad should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

If the deal goes through as predicted, someone is going to have to sit back and tally the results: what did the insurgents get out of the insurgency? This is a deal after all, not a surrender. Did they get a place at the political table? A share in oil revenue? Something more? Implied security guarantees?

One can ask what the US has gotten for its blood and treasure . . . but I think it is far too early for that.

If Iraqis who've killed Americans are given amnesty, a curious possibility enters the mind: future Sunni politicians who declare their status as veterans of the war against the Americans in their campaigns . . . This is a horrendous historical comparison, but Confederate officers weren't allowed to run for office . . .

But let's hold for more developments . . .

Posted by Chester at June 23, 2006 2:20 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/874

Comments

So long as the "amnesty" doesn't include the beheaders and the foreign terrorists, I think the American people will accept the deal. Americans realize that our troops die in war, and that, once a treaty is signed, it's over, for both sides.

Posted by: antimedia at June 23, 2006 7:05 PM

"Confederate officers weren't allowed to run for office . . ."

*ahem* cough... I think Pete Longstreet was.... ;-)

Posted by: Warren Smith at June 24, 2006 5:05 AM

As to holding office, C.S. officers and politicos were allowed to hold office and did...Alexander Stephens wound up as Governor of Ga. Besides Longstreet, off the top of my head, Edward Walthall (Corps Commander and Lieut General in the Army of Tenn) -- was a Senator from Miss. To say nothing of Fighting Joe Wheeler, and J.S. Mosby.

If a more or less stable gov't. came out of this "deal" -- which remains to be seen -- I hope we can hold our noses and deal with persons in it who opposed the US amicably, repugnant as some of us will find it. Pragmatically, a little Sunni power is no bad thing, if only because the Sunnis can't stand Iran.

Whatever the deal: there are certainly going to be groups that won't swallow it, or any deal, and which will only be pacified by being made dead. There will probably be some Shiites in this category. The question before the house is still whether the new Iraqi government is going to have reliable military and police instruments to crush insurrection and keep violence down to a dull roar.

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 26, 2006 4:15 PM

I was really interested in (and mentioned on my own blog) the amazing "concidence" that Z-Cow got offed the same day as the Iraqis resolved their longstanding problem of forming a government. Had to be some kind of deal -- somebody got sold out. Like something out of the Godfather.

Tom Hagen: "You know how they're going to come at you?"
Michael: "They want to arrange a meeting between me and Barzini. On Tessio's ground. Where I'll be safe."

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 26, 2006 4:31 PM

My bust on the Confederate officers it seems. Hmm. I could have sworn there was some limit placed on their political power. I'll have to look it up again.

Posted by: Chester at June 26, 2006 9:17 PM

I think that some specific confederate politicians, rather than officers, were barred from office (other than Jeff Davis, who was obvious) but I may not have that quite right.

The union did a fairly effective job on reconstruction though- certainly far better than that which has followed most civil wars in history.

Posted by: Warren Smith at June 27, 2006 9:29 AM

Chester,
In case you are wondering, ANOTHER Saddam official has reportedly been found to be an active al Qaeda agent in Iraq. I have some more details and a list of the others here...
http://markeichenlaub.blogspot.com/2006/06/haitham-al-badri.html

Posted by: Mark Eichenlaub at June 28, 2006 8:31 PM