Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sabotaging Peace in Iraq

By Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine.com. Posted July 6, 2006.


The details of the so-called 'amnesty' deal show that the United States is not serious about forging peace in Iraq.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Robert Dreyfuss

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The events in Iraq during the past week make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that neither the Bush administration nor its puppet Shiite theocrats in Iraq want peace.

Ten days ago, the U.S.-installed government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki made a grand show of offering "national reconciliation" with the Iraqi insurgency. In what seemed at first to be an olive branch to the insurgents, Maliki began dropping hints that the regime in Baghdad might offer a package deal to the resistance, including a broad amnesty for armed, anti-occupation fighters and an outreach to the deposed Iraqi Baath party. It was, according to Maliki and to Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a sincere effort to strike a deal that could end the fighting in Iraq and which conceivably could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Last week, I wrote skeptically about the thin possibility that Maliki might strike a deal with the resistance. By now, it is obvious that the Maliki-Khalilzad supposed reconciliation plan was no such thing. Khalilzad, President Jalal Talabani and Maliki have been conducting on-again, off-again talks with parts of the Iraqi resistance for at least a year but appear to have no intention of offering the insurgent groups a deal they can accept. Instead, Khalilzad and the leaders of the Iraq government are engaged in a cynical, divide-and-conquer maneuver that can only guarantee the war in Iraq will grind on for years.

Last Sunday, when Maliki released his much-anticipated reconciliation plan, it was vague and insubstantial. Maliki mentioned "amnesty," but the amnesty he offered did not extend to those doing the fighting. He included no outreach to the Baathists -- who are at the heart of the resistance -- and not a hint that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is on the table. Instead, Maliki simply asked the fighters to lay down their arms, and he called on Sunni tribal and clan leaders and Sunni Arab political blocs to join the Baghdad regime. It was a warmed over, but still very stale version of repeated calls by the U.S. occupation authorities and their Iraqi allies for an unconditional surrender by the resistance.

According to reports in the media, the fact that the reconciliation plan didn't include anything new was the result of pressure on the Iraqi government by the U.S. embassy and the American military command. For a few days, hope fluttered in some quarters, sparked by reports that as many as seven Iraqi insurgent groups had responded positively to Maliki's plan. Perhaps for the first time in three years, it seemed possible that an end to the war was in sight.

But as details of the plan became clear, the idea of national reconciliation was rejected virtually unanimously by the Iraqi resistance. By the end of the week, the Sunni leaders in Iraq closest to the insurgency were all reporting that the Maliki plan was dead. Hareth al-Dari, a leader of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said bluntly: "The main resistance factions have rejected [the plan]," and he called it "nothing but a public relations plan to brighten the image of the government." Added Hussein Falluji, a Sunni member of parliament: "The major factions have refused this initiative … This reconciliation plan is only in the prime minister's mind. It was born dead."

More bluntly, Maliki's plan was denounced by resistance leaders on the internet -- and the resistance answered Maliki with a devastating wave of violence, car bombs, and intensified attacks on U.S. forces. Not only that, but for the very first time a Shiite resistance group made itself known. The new Shiite force, called the "Islamic Army in Iraq: Abbas Brigades," is apparently not linked to any of the ruling Shiite religious parties, including the often independent-minded forces allied with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and its call to arms echoed the line of the mostly Sunni-led resistance. Iraq, said the Abbas Brigades, is occupied by an American force that is "building bases [and] sowing sectarian sedition between Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Kurds." It pledged attacks on U.S. troops.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just what do the Iraqis have to do to be free?
Posted by: IanA on Jul 6, 2006 1:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an excellent article and shows exactly the hypocrisy of the US administration. With the means at their disposal I wonder exactly what the Iraqis have to do to get rid of the foreign invaders occupiers of their country. There is no benefit to the Iraqi people to have a US embassy the size of a small city running their country, or 14 fully armed US bases with troops who’s mission is primarily to "protect themselves" while establishing their presence and therefore cannot identify the enemy because they cannot see the impediment of that presence.

There is no logic in the US position other than the logic of 21st C fascist imperialism, and although one may regret the death of stupid Americans who join and stay with a military which persues illegal wars of aggression and engages in war crimes, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney only listen to people that can harm them. The only thing that seems to cause that is dead Americans or American forces personnel. The entire anti-war movement is about dead Americans, giving little even lip service to dead Iraqis, illegal occupations, hegemony or moral hypocrisy. In short if the US had “succeeded” to dominate Iraq, its people and resources, without loosing troops there would be almost no condemnation of this war and these crimes.

The US is conducting state terrorism and thus provoking conventional terrorism from people that needs to see the end of this US hegemony. To them these provocations provide a strong reason to support Iraqi insurgence and/or Taliban or any other like minded organizations wherever they appear. Thus most experts see the US actions as causing the growth of terrorism, not a fight against it.

The end of the cold war spelled a threat to the military industrial complex. 9/11 was the pump primer and every action since has been calculated to fan the fire of an endless Kafcesc conflict of global suppression and domination. It has nothing to do with terrorists either.

Saddam couldn't hold a candle to the criminals in charge now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Spic and Span Posted by: O.B.Server
» RE: Spic and Span Posted by: andrewgirma
» RE: The Iraqis will be FREE Posted by: symcokid
» RE: The Iraqis will be FREE sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Do your dream about Karl Rove? Posted by: andrewgirma
all along
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 6, 2006 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been clear all along that the USA under the Bushies intends to occupy Iraq and control Iraq politics as long as there remains oil to be pumped then Iraq's grossly polluted landscape will be dumped because the USA will have rendered it useless. This is what happens when greed rules uber alles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: all along Posted by: famouspipeliner
Palestine & Iraq same program different channel
Posted by: enzolima on Jul 6, 2006 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like the Israelis have no intention of peace in Palestine the Neocons who got us into war with Iraq have no intention of making peace. It's all the same show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OF COURSE they don't want their Endless Gravy Train to end
Posted by: xbj on Jul 6, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course there's absolutely no plan for any end to the war in Iraq, and instead, a bevy of plans for expansion of the war from one end of the Middle East to the other.

This war has been, without exception, the single greatest boondoggle moneyminting scam anyone ever hatched to rape TRILLIONS from American Taxpayers.

That's it. No Democracy. No freedom. No NOTHING but endless misery, carnage, and death to innocent people BY America's OWN TROOPS and America's OWN UNELECTED ADMINISTRATION, with the complicity of an ELECTED BY DIEBOLD AND ES&S (for two elections) CONGRESS.

No folks, there's no way to spin this one; the people of America are bleeding from their asses on this one, but at least we're still alive.

Now if we can just get over the incapacitating shock of being sodomized by those sworn to "protect and defend us AND the constitution", and start legal regime change to remove our OWN evil unelected dictators, BEFORE THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES IT FOR US.

Believe me, it will be better if we do it FIRST.

And FORGET about November amounting to anything. We need to plan for the Diebold/ES&S GOP SWEEP and its aftermath. And keep the legal challenges going INTO THE NEXT CENTURY IF WE HAVE TO.

And we're going to HAVE TO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Track the Oil Money
Posted by: Joe Ox on Jul 7, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone lay out the mechanics, how does it work? The army is pumping and selling the oil? Or Iraqis are selling it and handing the cash to the US? I'm just curious how that oil money is getting into the grubby hands of the administration since we really don't receive a lot of Iraqi oil here in the US, and the output is way below capacity overthere. Why? Iraqis blow it up, over and over, and we, having tremedous financial self interest, rarely leave American forces to guard Iraqi oil infrastructure.
We are bumbling oil scammers at best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Track the Oil Money Posted by: Rosey