Negotiate With Iraqi Insurgents ???
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
B
Blkvoz
Guest
Point well taken. However, history will bear out that the “Ho Chi Minh trail” had more to do with the American withdrawal than the Paris Peace Accord.QueEx said:
B
Blkvoz
Guest
Neither would I disagree with the notion that the trail significantly Influenced "NEGOTIATIONS" at the peace talks in Paris.QueEx said:
But aren't we both saying the same thing? the theme of this discussion as I understand it, seems to beg the question, should we or will we enter into negations with the Iraqi Insurgents.
If one takes the position that the Insurgents are not part of a legitimate government (Re: 1954 Geneva Agreement on Viet Nam) and may even be considered part of a conspiracy to invade Iraq, then maybe a case could be made not to engage them In negations.
Personally I see a parallel between the Insurgents, and the NLF. However I think the comparison is not worth debating, consequently I will accept your view as regards any similarity.
The Iraqi Army and Police Force that were dismissed along with the Baithists, left Iraq with no agencies of Social Control, no Civil Service, and no Public Works.
It does not take much imagination to envision a significant number of these now unemployed men, joining the ranks of the Insurgency. Does this alignment now give the Insurgency any legitimacy Re: 1954?
Ergo any prospects of Peace, will out of necessity include the Insurgency if there is to be any hope of stability.
The present administration will not negotiate with the insurgency, they will continue to claim this debacle can be won. We don’t yet know what influence the incoming Legislature will exert on the President.
The expected Baker commission report seems to support negotiations with all effected parties including Iran and Syria..
Sounds mighty much like negotiations to me.
One further small point, the Paris Accords were signed in 1973, the war did not end until 1975.
Peace
QueEx said:HUH my ... ; Did you Russian friend travel to Europe in October ??? It seems he may have left several British Airways jets .... aglow !lol
QueEx
All firearms purchases require a waiting period & background check
The War in Iraq, Costs
$348,581,393,572+
Better do something quick, before the shit hits the fan...
[FRAME]http://costofwar.com/numbers.html[/FRAME]
$348,581,393,572+
Better do something quick, before the shit hits the fan...
[FRAME]http://costofwar.com/numbers.html[/FRAME]
The greatest nation in history is about to be defeated by a country the size of California. As citizens of that great nation I think we should be worried. Look at our economy and see how it is vibrant despite the fact we are in 2 wars, oil prices at 63$ a barrel, genocide in Darfur, not to mention a weak currency. Those numbers could be taken as a compliment to our strength but one has to wonder if the market sees a world where America isn't a Superpower anymore.
Pretty much.Blkvoz said:
I agree. At this point, I do not see a way around not dealing with the insurgency since it seems to hold as many cards, if not more, as does the government.
The question, in my mind, is in what form will those negotiations take. I would tend to think if "Back Channel" negotiations do not demonstrate a serious willingness by the insurgency for a workable-looking resolution, it doesn't make much sense, to me, at least, to bring it to a formal roundtable just to give it another forum to do what its doing now.
I think most will agree that the insurgency is affected by outside influences: Iran, Syria, the Saudis and, maybe, to some degree Al Qaeda. If <u>enough</u> of the insurgency can't demonstrate that its more interested in an "Iraqi" solution and less of a solution in the interest of the outside intermeddlers, seems to me that puts us about where we are right now (bogged down in the middle of Muslims v. Muslims and Muslim outsiders) -- or at least where we would be upon withdrawal since there would be nothing left to do (since we are not about to go on a "nittie" killing spree [1]) but to withdraw leaving Iraq in the throes of Muslim v. Muslim and Muslim outsiders civil warfare. After the bloodbath, they'll carve it up the way they like; and pump some oil.
To be honest, and I seriously hope I'm wrong, I doubt they can throw off the intermeddlers, particularly Iran. I think Iran is looking at a chance in a lifetime to lead, if not control, damn near the entire region and then some. Short of cutting a deal with Iran allowing it to go nuclear (militarily as well as for civilian purposes), Iran is sitting on the cusp of changing the face of the region. I know many blame Israel for the last war and I don't doubt for second that it shares blame, but I think Iran used its proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon to push its larger agenda with its friends, the Syrians (its interesting to see what is happening in Lebanon today, as we type: ... the same Hezbollah that had lots to do with the destruction Israel heaped on Lebanon is now trying to overthrow the government of Lebanon that opposes Syrian domination of Lebanon).
Here, you've posited THE question. I'm going to go out on a limb: Bush cracks but in a way its debatable whether he cracked. I just have to believe that there will be "Back Channel" discussions with the government and elements of the Sunnis and Shites. If he can't find something with a semblance of a solution between them; he will come to a decision that THE IRAQIS WON'T WORK WITH US AND PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THEMSELVES, therefore, we will do our best to train and leave -- a departure from stay the course.
Of course it is. But, I don't think the Commission intends or suggests negotiations where its a lose-lose situation. That is, if Iran won't seriously negotiate a pull back of the dogs far enough (stop fueling the insurgency) to let the Iraqis shape something other than an apparent-client-state of Iran (without the Nuke matter on the table or some resolution thereof the U.S. can half-ass agree with), I don't believe the Commission expects the U.S. to capitulate-by-negotiation. In the law bidness we call that "bargaining against oneself" -- something you should never do. Hence, if Iran simply seeks U.S. capitulation and Iranian control over the region and its oil, there is nothing to negotiate (we don't want to pay the price for doing that to the Saudis and Egyptians). But, as I ramble along, the wild card is held by the democrats. As you mentioned, we don't know what role they will play. I'm placing my money on they will in the end take whatever position they deem to make the most sense for the 2008 race.
A small but important point - which points to the fact that the parties will have in the back of their minds (especially Iran), that a <u>workable</u>-<u>looking</u> agreement that allows U.S. withdrawal can pave the way for another and different result, in the end.
Peace
QueEx
[1] Poster nittie has implied that what we should do (paraphrasing here) "wipe out the insurgency" which necessarily means many, many innocent civilians being killed (since there is nothing to delineate an insurgent from anyone else). Nittie, if I incorrectly paraphrased the idea you expressed, I stand corrected.
Last edited:
