Negotiating with Terrorists – It’s about time
The complex reality on the ground in Iraq is finally being acknowledged by the White House.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. military is joining forces with the State Department to prepare a new Iraq strategy that includes negotiating cease-fire and power-sharing agreements with some enemy combatants, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
A “joint campaign plan redesign team” is preparing the diplomatic and military strategy for Iraq, which is expected to be approved by the end of the month.
The team laying out the new course for how to proceed in the four-year-old war is led by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the officials told CNN.
One element of the plan is to try to identify groups of people — possibly including Sunni extremists and militia groups — with whom U.S. officials feel they can do business, such as negotiating power-sharing and cease-fire agreements and granting economic aid, the sources said.
While this is clearly a huge step forward, this is the way the wingnut media is spinning it:
America Signals Change Toward Appeasement In Terrorist Policy
2007-06-01 — [WDC News Post] — American policy toward terrorism has shifted to appeasement and negotiation, viewed by terrorists as admitting defeat.
On Thursday, May 31, WorldNetDaily reported that Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno announced U.S. commanders In Iraq are being empowered to reach out for cease fire talks with militants, tribes, religious leaders and others, including insurgents and sectarian rivals. WND reported that Muhammad Abdel-El, a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror group, said Odierno’s announcement of truce talks with insurgents was “a big victory for the resistance.” Abdel-El said, “Americans are recognizing the resistance, the same resistance that they before called terrorism; now they are dealing with them, and this is the recognition of Iraqi resistance and recognition by the Americans of their own loss in Iraq.”
I wonder where bloodthristy freaks like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are on the “appeasement” issue?
Looks like “reality” has out maneuvered “ideology” within the inner circle. My guess is that one of the key players, probably Rove, has shifted his view to now align with Gates and Conde.
“While this is clearly a huge step forward, this is the way the wingnut media is spinning it”
It is scary that you can actually think this. Have you gotten all the assurances from Hitler you need Mr. Chamberlain?
Negotiating with extremists groups will come back to haunt us terribly. It is one thing to have conversations with some of the more powerful RATIONAL regional leaders, but all extremist groups need to be left out of the discussion. You hold discussions with them, you legitimize them and crown them victors.
Which I guess you are ok with. Declare loss, pull out, go home, and just repeat to ourselves “We let them win, now they will leave us alone. We let them win, now they will leave us alone.” Just keep wishing all you want. And pat yourself on the back because we were so “enlightened” to treat the radicals like equals. What a grand idea.
I guess opening a dialogue with him was a good idea too.
“TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s president said on Sunday the Lebanese and the Palestinians had pressed a “countdown button” to bring an end to Israel.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who triggered outrage in the West two years ago when he said Israel should be “wiped off the map”, has often referred to the destruction of the Jewish state but says Iran is not a threat.
“With God’s help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech.
“By God’s will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future,” he said. He did not elaborate.”
Iraq is a challenge, no doubt but the decision to stay, go or negotiate will probably be more about regional circumstances than ideology of the Bush administration.
I guess opening a dialogue with him (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) was a good idea too.
No. Bomb ’em all and let God sort ’em out.
Is that what you want to hear?
You are a child.
“No. Bomb ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.
Is that what you want to hear?
You are a child.”
Actually…you are if you believe ANY sort of dialogue with that nutjob will work. I didn’t say bomb em because as I have actually detailed before, there is a large contingent of Iranians (mostly the elderly and the youth) that are pro-west. Intelligent operations are what are called for, but that goes against every fiber of your cowering appeasement attitude.
I gotta side with jason on this one (hey, there’s a first for everything). The people we’re fighting aren’t one monolithic group. Some of them are locals who want us gone and some are hardened terrorists who will fight us anywhere they can. You can negotiate with the former group b/c their objectives are finite. They don’t want to slay every infidel blah blah blah. Rather, they simply want to run the show in Iraq. Bringing them into the political process is achievable. You need to offer them somewhere to go otherwise they’re in a corner with nothing to lose.
Unfortunatly, it seems “terrorist” has become a buzz word for everyone who doesn’t like the US and wants them out of the region. We especially apply this word to anyone willing to use force to accomplish these ends. However, there is a difference between terrorists and insurgents; insurgents are motivated by a finite goal of ending American influence in the region. We have even seen cases of insurgents fighting the terrorists because they are tired of the civilian casualties and tendency for a prolonged American presence that will result from true terrorist attacks. I see no reason why we cannot negotiate with one and fight the other simultaneously. We cannot just oversimplify this situation as it seems so many “Bushies” tend to do.
Be wary of permanent bases in Iraq and a “South Korea” approach.
Troops in garrison who are a “trip wire” to halt the North by upping the ante is not the same as many, many Forward Operating Bases ( there are 70 of these FOBs) in a land which is not in control of its sovereign responsibilities.
I want to hear more about this approach.