reports that we’ve begun negotiating with various insurgent groups to try to either a) bring some resolution to the insurgency and/or b) isolate the foreign jihadists. couple caveats: i have no problem with this approach as i think it’s about the only alternative to getting out of dodge that will limit loss of life, both military and civilian. also, it is quite possible that this is not a new development and that meetings of this nature have occurred in the past(contingency planning and whatnot). it could also be possible that the primary motivation for the meetings was to gather intelligence.
with that said, if these are qualitatively different types of meetings that have recently begun, how would this strategy differ from the restraint and understanding that rove decried in his recent speech? furthermore, if there is criticism of this approach, the admin needs to shut up and take it. their hard line, black/white rhetoric has painted themselves into a corner, now they should have to deal with it should the situation arise.
and again, to re-emphasize, i don’t have a problem with this approach. it’s smart. i do have a problem with neocon hypocrisy though, in light of this turn of events.
I am not sure what hypocrisy you might be refering to. The whole idea sounds like exactly what the Afgan government did there. We need to sweep enemies into the democratic process. Sure, this will result effectively in pardons for a bunch of bad actors, but Iraq will never reconcile and look to the future if it keeps fighting the battles of the past. Unfortunately, you don’t make peace with friends. You make peace with enemies.
Suck in the domestic elements. Isolate and destroy the foreign elements. Works for me.
There doesn’t seem to be anything new here. That is how they have been handling Sadr for example.
Yeah, but there is the matter of an Iraqi government whose policies we do need to respect. If this is their approach, which it probably is, seems like we need to play along to some extent.
These are tough calls. I am glad I am not making them.
We should not be so quick to label someone a terrorist if we are simply going to do a 180 and decide that they are a perfectly legitimate part of the democratic process.
And the hypocrisy is pronounced, it’s unavoidable.
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
The pretense of the neo-con Straussian war makers is that they are moral warriors; fighting at all times for justice and against terrorism.
The truth is that they are fighting for economic and political influence in a resource-rich part of the world and they will deal with basically whoever they need to (terrorist or otherwise) in order to get it.
So the hypocrisy is there and it is staring at us all right in the face.
Further, do not pretend this is us simply respecting Iraqi wishes. We facilitate these meetings. It is our idea as much as theirs.
And it’s going to be impossible to convince people we aren’t pulling the strings because it’s a ridiculous notion on its face; of course we’re pulling the strings. We aren’t there out of charity.
that’s what mr. bush said. but apparently now these folks aren’t terrorists. not to mention, i thought it was the dems that were in favor of understanding, restraint, negotiation, etc.(and these weren’t positive labels, by the way). for the repubs to deride dems for these views, then turn around to open negotiations with iraqi insurgents is hypocritical. no other way to slice it. they made their bed, now they have to lie in it(although i have no doubt that we will shortly be hearing about how negotiations was always part of the plan).
You don’t have to try and convince me what we did was wrong, I have been against this war from the beginning and would love to see an end to it. I have stated many times that we should pull out but that would be political suicide and will never be done. My point on this thread is that the administration is seemingly willing to move away from the long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists to achieve an end to this war.
Does this remind anyone of what happened with Vietnam? Paris Peace Talks? Nah, no parallels here, move on.
I guess it really needs to be pointed out that to the extent this qualifies as negotiating, it is negotiating their terms of surrender.
Give up your battle, give up your arms, give up those who are supporting you and we will let you live your life without going after you. I guess you could call that negotiating, but this works for me.
I guess it really needs to be pointed out that to the extent this qualifies as negotiating, it is negotiating their terms of surrender.
Give up your battle, give up your arms, give up those who are supporting you and we will let you live your life without going after you. I guess you could call that negotiating, but this works for me.
Except you completely miss the part where Rumsfeld says the insurgency cannot be beaten by the US and it will likely take Iraq a dozen years to sort it out.
“Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years. Foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency,” Mr Rumsfeld said.
“We’re going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.”
So… yeah… welcome to quagmire, gentlemen. Turn on the TEEVEE and let’s watch thousands more innocent people die for a bullshit war we can’t win. Pass the chips.
I don’t miss the part where ultimately the iraqis have to step up and win the battle nor the part where the process will take some number of years.
The “insurgency” has killed approximately 12,000, mostly Iraqis. Freedom is hard won, but keep in mind this is a small fraction of the deaths caused directly by Hussein. Come to grips with the fact that seldom is there a choice between perfect and terrible.
I suppose you could call Israel a quagmire as well. Maybe you think the Jews should just give up too.
I don’t miss the part where ultimately the iraqis have to step up and win the battle nor the part where the process will take some number of years.
Did you miss the part where we can’t win? Where we have to run away and leave other people to clean up the mess that we made? Because if you didn’t then please read again.
The “insurgency” has killed approximately 12,000, mostly Iraqis. Freedom is hard won, but keep in mind this is a small fraction of the deaths caused directly by Hussein. Come to grips with the fact that seldom is there a choice between perfect and terrible.
I’m glad to be a citizen of the nation that gets to make these life/death choices for other people. You know, the “hard choices” as a former Secretary of State put it.
I suppose you could call Israel a quagmire as well. Maybe you think the Jews should just give up too.
I don’t see a parallel aside from them both being kind of in the same part of the world. But hey, if you aren’t happy with your stance within the topic feel free to change at will. Hey, how about them Yankees, eh?
With great power comes great responsibilities, including the responsibility to make tough choices.
I guess my father’s generation really was the greatest generation. We suffered more loses in many battles in WWII than we have in Iraq. Fortunately, we didn’t have many citizens to say that “we can’t win.” I don’t think that constuction could have even been formulated prior to my being a teenager.
We have won the war. Now we have to do the really hard work of winning the peace.
With great power comes great responsibilities, including the responsibility to make tough choices.
Foreign policy according to Spiderman?
Who have us the responsibility of making sure everything in the world was as we wanted it to be? Who? From where do we get this authority? Our power alone? Might makes right?
I guess my father’s generation really was the greatest generation. We suffered more loses in many battles in WWII than we have in Iraq. Fortunately, we didn’t have many citizens to say that “we can’t win.” I don’t think that constuction could have even been formulated prior to my being a teenager.
Did I read that right or did you just compare this war to WWII?
You’re going to have to clarify that before we move forward, because I’m really hoping my eyes are just deceiving me.
We have won the war. Now we have to do the really hard work of winning the peace.
We have the responsibility because we have the power. That is just reality. You also need to understand that in this context, a decision to do nothing is every bit as much of a decision with consequences as a decision to do something. We do nothing in Sudan, it has consequences. We do nothing in Iraq, that would have consequences. Actions, consequences. No getting around it.
No, I didn’t compare this war to WWII. I compared this generation to my father’s generation. We come out looking like self centered, whiney, defeatists.
We are a pretty pathetic lot, all things considered. It is not like anyone is asking us to fight a war against Hitler and Japan at the same time and rebuild those areas after we win. This challenge is miniscule compared what they faced, yet we whine “We can’t win.” Barf.
Winning the peace means standing up a self perpetuating democracy of sorts in Iraq.
We have the responsibility because we have the power. That is just reality.
So obviously we’re extremely irresponsible given all the other problems in the world we do nothing about, eh?
I’m just wanting to see how consistent this logic really is. I have a feeling it’s nothing more than a pretense to cover other motives.
No, I didn’t compare this war to WWII. I compared this generation to my father’s generation. We come out looking like self centered, whiney, defeatists.
Give us a war that’s not a total sham and we might look a little better.
Should we back any military action whatsoever so we can look tough? Sounds like a pretty intelligent way of operating.
We are a pretty pathetic lot, all things considered. It is not like anyone is asking us to fight a war against Hitler and Japan at the same time and rebuild those areas after we win. This challenge is miniscule compared what they faced, yet we whine “We can’t win.” Barf.
So you’re calling Donald Rumsfeld a wuss?
Winning the peace means standing up a self perpetuating democracy of sorts in Iraq.
Didn’t you see Rumsfeld say we’re going to cut and run before then?