PDA

View Full Version : The Insurgency is Almost Over - Iraqi Sunni Fighters Talking



Jeremiah
02-20-2005, 12:13 PM
Report: U.S. in Secret Talks with Iraqi Insurgents

50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (*******) - U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq (news - web sites)'s Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon (news - web sites) and other sources.



The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel" communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources told the magazine.

The magazine cited a secret meeting between two members of the U.S. military and an Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime and the senior representative of what he called the nationalist insurgency.

A U.S. officer tried to get names of other insurgent leaders while the Iraqi complained the new Shi'ite-dominated government was being controlled by Iran, according to an account of the meeting provided by the Iraqi negotiator.

"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.

Iraqi insurgent leaders not aligned with al Qaeda ally Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi told the magazine several nationalist groups composed of what the Pentagon calls "former regime elements" have become open to negotiating.

The insurgents said their aim was to establish a political identity that can represent disenfranchised Sunnis.

The White House had no immediate comment on the report.

Time Article Details (Part 1)

The secret meeting is taking place in the bowels of a facility in Baghdad, a cavernous, heavily guarded building in the U.S.-controlled green zone. The Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein's regime and the senior representative of the self-described nationalist insurgency, sits on one side of the table.

He is here to talk to two members of the U.S. military. One of them, an officer, takes notes during the meeting. The other, dressed in civilian clothes, listens as the Iraqi outlines a list of demands the U.S. must satisfy before the insurgents stop fighting. The parties trade boilerplate complaints: the U.S. officer presses the Iraqi for names of other insurgent leaders; the Iraqi says the newly elected Shi'a-dominated government is being controlled by Iran. The discussion does not go beyond generalities, but both sides know what's behind the coded language.

The Iraqi's very presence conveys a message: Members of the insurgency are open to negotiating an end to their struggle with the U.S. "We are ready," he says before leaving, "to work with you.

Time article Details 2

What Iraqis Sunnis want - ALL DOABLE hahaha


lthough they have no immediate plans to halt attacks on U.S. troops, they say their aim is to establish a political identity that can represent disenfranchised Sunnis and eventually negotiate an end to the U.S. military's offensive in the Sunni triangle.

"That's what we're working for, to have a political face appear from the battlefield, to unify the groups, to resist the aggressor and put our views to the people," says a battle commander in the upper tiers of the insurgency who asked to be identified by his nom de guerre, Abu Marwan. Another negotiator, called Abu Mohammed, told TIME, "Despite what has happened, the possibility for negotiation is still open."

What do the insurgents want? Top insurgent field commanders and negotiators informed TIME that the rebels have told diplomats and military officers that they support a secular democracy in Iraq but resent the prospect of a government run by exiles who fled to Iran and the West during Saddam's regime. The insurgents also seek a guaranteed timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, a demand the U.S. refuses. But there are some hints of compromise: insurgent negotiators have told their U.S. counterparts they would accept a U.N. peacekeeping force as the U.S. troop presence recedes.

Insurgent representative Abu Mohammed says the nationalists would even tolerate U.S. bases on Iraqi soil. "We don't mind if the invader becomes a guest," he says, suggesting a situation akin to the U.S. military presence in Germany and Japan.

BlackFlag
02-20-2005, 02:11 PM
sounds like promising news...i wouldnt get too excited though, terrorists are terrorists...Although ever since the Iraqi elections the insurgency has been crumbling...Iraqi's are starting to fight back, I'm sure they are overly sick of the chaos these dousche bags have been causing..

usa320
02-20-2005, 03:21 PM
i really cannot support any negotiations with these people. Not since the beheadings and bombing the polling places. Its clear they are totally against peace and democracy in Iraq. If they wanted peace and a political say in Iraq's future, they would go about getting it in peaceful and political means. Not by killing scores of Iraqis and trying to incite a civil war. Half the "insurgents" arent even Iraqis. They are Syrians, Iranians, ect.. Zarquawis al Qaeda guys. To negotiate with them would be like negotiating with Osama Bin Laden. I really think it would be wrong to negotiate with these assholes. We need to stay in the fight for the long haul and get rid of these guys. If we make a deal with em now, they are only gonna pop up elsewhere in the future and give us trouble.

Ichhabe
02-20-2005, 03:27 PM
i really cannot support any negotiations with these people. Not since the beheadings and bombing the polling places. Its clear they are totally against peace and democracy in Iraq. If they wanted peace and a political say in Iraq's future, they would go about getting it in peaceful and political means. Not by killing scores of Iraqis and trying to incite a civil war. Half the "insurgents" arent even Iraqis. They are Syrians, Iranians, ect.. Zarquawis al Qaeda guys. To negotiate with them would be like negotiating with Osama Bin Laden. I really think it would be wrong to negotiate with these assholes. We ? need to stay in the fight for the long haul and get rid of these guys. If we make a deal with em now, they are only gonna pop up elsewhere in the future and give us trouble.

Thank God your not the one to decide. And who do you "we" you with??? You ain't the one out there fighting and trying to survive t'ill the next day.

Aerosoul
02-20-2005, 03:32 PM
The only problem is that the alleged Iraqi they are speaking to represents only one element of the "insurgency". Don't forget about Zarqawi.

Sounds good, though. We'll see how it goes.

Ratamacue
02-20-2005, 03:32 PM
Yeah, really dude. The overwhelming majority of US casualties in Iraq have been since war's end, caused by the insurgency. If you had an opportunity to end it, would you take it? While I think that negotiation with terrorists is something we should try to avoid, in this case, it's better to take a chance with it.

4nzix
02-20-2005, 03:33 PM
Yeah, you go on believing that this will be resolved easily.

bison3255
02-20-2005, 03:34 PM
keep dreaming, by the time you finish with the sunnis the shiites will be angry at you for bombing iran

Umm-Qasr
02-20-2005, 03:39 PM
keep dreaming, by the time you finish with the sunnis the shiites will be angry at you for bombing iranI wouldn't be angry and trust me the majority of Shia in Iraq also wouldn't be angry due to the bad behaviour of Iranians towards the Iraqi Shia in Iran since the 1st GW ...

bison3255
02-20-2005, 03:40 PM
You dont need a majority. You need a couple ten thousands.

khukuri
02-20-2005, 04:14 PM
Yeah, really dude. The overwhelming majority of US casualties in Iraq have been since war's end, caused by the insurgency. If you had an opportunity to end it, would you take it? While I think that negotiation with terrorists is something we should try to avoid, in this case, it's better to take a chance with it.

x2

Its easy to be hard on principles like not negotiating with terrorists when its not youre life youre talking about.

ElHombre
02-20-2005, 04:46 PM
this just keeps getting better and better. *sarcasm*

the administration is supposedly talking with people who they gave a reason and ability to exist in the first place. this after an election which gave the majority of seats to a group who has strong ties to iran.

will somebody please remind me how this is to help make the US safer? (one of those goals stated before the war started, you may recall)

Michael RVR
02-20-2005, 05:03 PM
While you might not like the idea of insurgents getting on with their lives and being able to walk the streets of Iraq, if you want them to stop fighting and to stop raising support, thats what you might have to do.

You have to integrate them, and their families, into Iraq sometime. ;)

M1A2U2
02-20-2005, 06:25 PM
"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said
rofl rofl after seeing the might of the US military

usm2b
02-20-2005, 07:12 PM
HELL NO!!!!

You don't appease a an expanshionist regime with more territory.

I want the insurgency to stop just like the next guy. Negotiating with them however is the stupidest **** Bush can do. The simple act of having negotiations is going to give any terrorist the known fact that if you bug America enough they will negotiate and they[the terrorist] will get thier victory.

The only negotiation should be,
Hey assholes....stop this assinine behavior or ill insert this fragmentation grenade in your rectum.

ElHombre
02-20-2005, 07:38 PM
The only negotiation should be,
Hey assholes....stop this assinine behavior or ill insert this fragmentation grenade in your rectum.

to which they'll reply: 'only if you can find us before we can find you.'

Lokos
02-20-2005, 09:16 PM
If they negotiate with these people, the US government is going to be catching a **** load of flak for its continuous moral ambiguity.

Lokos

Sloppy Joe2
02-20-2005, 10:14 PM
my question is what good does time magazine think it is doing by reporting about secret peace talks i support the talks becuase in the end as sad as i am to say it i think the insurgents can out last the us military in iraq and if we can eliminate one group of resistance i think thats a big step and could allow us to focus on the Zarqawi group but im probably not as educated on the subject as some of you but thats just my opinion :) I HATE TIME MAGAZINE NOW!!!!

CG51
02-20-2005, 10:19 PM
there are some members here that bush cannot do any wrong...most Americans support our troops but do not support this war that has cost over 300 billion and over 1500 deaths...bush has alienated from most of our allies and we are hated more than ever...the quicker the exit the better...45 milliion here without heathcare, a social security system that will be bankrupt when most of the members of this forum will retire and bush and company are just lavishing money on iraq...

ElHombre
02-20-2005, 11:27 PM
...bush and company are just lavishing money on iraq...

more like lavishing money on the contractors rather than iraq.

Jobu
02-21-2005, 12:34 AM
I see no problem with negotiations with the insurgents to bring them into the political framework.

It's not the Zarqawi people who are negotiating, it's the Iraqi insurgents. Zarqawi's people are just terrorists.

If Iraq is to remain one country, the Sunni insurgents have to join the government.

I would make any negotiation dependent on the handover of Zarqawi though.

usa320
02-21-2005, 12:01 PM
the quicker the exit the better

That is perhaps the dumbest thing ive ever read.

We coulda bombed the **** outta baghdad and then left the Iraqis high and dry. That woulda been quick. We have to stay the course, we have to do things right and make Iraq work. Or we will just have to go back and do it all over again. Once you stir **** up, you have to stay until its fixed.

If we were to pull out before th job is done, it would send a horrible message to the terrorists. The same message clinton's half assed approach to them sent them. It would tell them we didnt have the guts to fight them for the long haul. We need to stay there till the end, and make sure they know that.

CG51
02-21-2005, 12:25 PM
the quicker the exit the better

That is perhaps the dumbest thing ive ever read.

We coulda bombed the f*** outta baghdad and then left the Iraqis high and dry. That woulda been quick. We have to stay the course, we have to do things right and make Iraq work. Or we will just have to go back and do it all over again. Once you stir **** up, you have to stay until its fixed.

If we were to pull out before th job is done, it would send a horrible message to the terrorists. The same message clinton's half assed approach to them sent them. It would tell them we didnt have the guts to fight them for the long haul. We need to stay there till the end, and make sure they know that.

i don't mean pulls chocks and run but the quickest exit strategy is fine by me...our top brass needs to quit jerking around and train as many of the iraqi's as possible to stand up and fight so they can take control of their own country, not leave it up to the U.S.

i know your gunho there usa320...but would you tell the mothers of the dead and disfigured soldiers that we gotta stay to send a message to the world...

DPGLAW
02-21-2005, 01:05 PM
i really cannot support any negotiations with these people. Not since the beheadings and bombing the polling places. Its clear they are totally against peace and democracy in Iraq. If they wanted peace and a political say in Iraq's future, they would go about getting it in peaceful and political means. Not by killing scores of Iraqis and trying to incite a civil war. Half the "insurgents" arent even Iraqis. They are Syrians, Iranians, ect.. Zarquawis al Qaeda guys. To negotiate with them would be like negotiating with Osama Bin Laden. I really think it would be wrong to negotiate with these assholes. We need to stay in the fight for the long haul and get rid of these guys. If we make a deal with em now, they are only gonna pop up elsewhere in the future and give us trouble.

USA...I think you are 100% correct. If they ahd any hopes of negotiating with us, they went up in smoke so to speak with the bombing of the polling places and the beheadings. I think we should not negotiate with them, jsut use more force until we can kill and/or maim each and every one of them. Or jsut go after the leaders, similar to the Phoenix Program in Vietnam.

ElHombre
02-21-2005, 01:16 PM
[I think we should not negotiate with them, jsut use more force until we can kill and/or maim each and every one of them. Or jsut go after the leaders, similar to the Phoenix Program in Vietnam.

you realize that you are suggesting that we use a strategy that was last used in a war that we lost...

CG51
02-21-2005, 01:35 PM
i really cannot support any negotiations with these people. Not since the beheadings and bombing the polling places. Its clear they are totally against peace and democracy in Iraq. If they wanted peace and a political say in Iraq's future, they would go about getting it in peaceful and political means. Not by killing scores of Iraqis and trying to incite a civil war. Half the "insurgents" arent even Iraqis. They are Syrians, Iranians, ect.. Zarquawis al Qaeda guys. To negotiate with them would be like negotiating with Osama Bin Laden. I really think it would be wrong to negotiate with these assholes. We need to stay in the fight for the long haul and get rid of these guys. If we make a deal with em now, they are only gonna pop up elsewhere in the future and give us trouble.

USA...I think you are 100% correct. If they ahd any hopes of negotiating with us, they went up in smoke so to speak with the bombing of the polling places and the beheadings. I think we should not negotiate with them, jsut use more force until we can kill and/or maim each and every one of them. Or jsut go after the leaders, similar to the Phoenix Program in Vietnam.

dude..the phoenix program? here is a quote out of the book The Phoenix Program, by Douglas Valentine...


Created by the CIA in Saigon in 1967, Phoenix was a computer-driven program aimed at “neutralizing”, through assassination, kidnapping, and systematic torture, the civilian infrastructure that supported the insurgency in South Vietnam. It was a terrifying “final solution” that violated the Geneva Conventions and traditional American ideas of human morality.