Who are the experts that the San Francisco Chronicle cites?  The International Crisis Group, which is a Brussels-based think tank with George Soros, Wesley Clark,  Chris Patten, on its board. They advocate U.N.-mediated talks with every insurgent group except Al-Qaeda.  See-Dubya points out that :

What is revealing is the Chronicle’s attempt to actually find out what the insurgents would be willing (and able) to bring to the table. They asked some insurgents. The answer? Nada:

* The Sunni/Nationalist insurgent bloc, fronted by former Saddam strongman Izzat Ibrahim (Al-Douri), won’t even talk to us because of what “we” did to Saddam. Two insurgency-linked Baathists (not Izzat) told the Chronicle no dice:

However, the chaotic Dec. 30 execution of Hussein stoked the insurgents’ anger against the United States and soured them on direct talks with Americans. 

“After the execution of President Saddam, now the Baath Party and all resistance groups reject any negotiations with the United States,” said the former army brigadier general.

 

* The Sunni demands–as relayed by the same general–are also ridiculous. For example, no Shiites:

the insurgents’ demands seem to leave little ground for compromise. The former Republican Guard general said the current government must be dissolved and replaced with “a military or political command council.” He did not explain how this council should be chosen, except that it would be made up of “patriotic Iraqis” who are “not loyal to Iran” — a demand that presumably excludes members of the leading Shiite organizations.

 

* The Shiites are willing to negotiate but their demands are no more realistic, including a de facto hall pass for their death squads:

“The American government must give the Iraqi government complete sovereignty, which means that the Iraqi army will have the authority to strike the takfiri Baathists with an iron hand, without any interference from the Americans,” said Hadi al-Amiri, leader of the Badr Brigade, a Shiite militia that has been largely incorporated into the Interior Ministry and, along with al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, is widely blamed for death-squad attacks on Sunnis.

 

* Neither of these parties can even control the extreme de la extreme within their ranks:

None of the Iraqis interviewed for this article had a plan for disarming his side’s most sectarian killers.

 

* And unlike the experts in the International Crisis Group, the “politically sophisticated radicals” are themselves losing hope that a negotiation could work:

“I don’t know anymore if it’s possible to stop this slide toward sectarian civil war,” said Wamidh Nadhmi, a political science professor at Baghdad University who is a leader of the National Foundation Conference of Resistance to the Occupation, a coalition of mostly Sunni and secular nationalist political groups.

When weighed against the downside of legitimating the insurgent groups by negotiating with them, the advantages of the Crisis Group’s proposal appear vanishingly small.

20 Responses to “U.S. must negotiate with insurgents and militias, experts say..I think Not!”

1. PCD
   January 9, 2007 - 08:47 AM on January 9th, 2007

   Liberals do not think through their ideas. They can’t understand the joke that circulated about demonstrating to a war protester why negotiations as they propose won’t work by beating that proteste all the while shouting, “Negotiat, infidel!” and other such phrases the libs like to pass along. The War protester is beaten until they either expire or realize that they can’t negotiate with someone who wants to kill them.

2. snowy egret
   January 9, 2007 - 09:37 AM on January 9th, 2007

   Then lets send GEORGE SOROS,WESLY CLARK and CHRIS PATTEN to negoiate with the insergents if their so interested:cool::idea:

3. Eben
   January 9, 2007 - 10:51 AM on January 9th, 2007

   The only real “joke” is that we created this situation in which we now find ourselves - of necessity - in needed of negotiation.

   This isn’t about ‘war protesting’. It’s about failure and lies and the administration’s refusal to admit fault in the first place.

   It’s about time we realized that we’re only going to cost ourselves and the Mideast in general more lives and disruption by our unwanted presence there.

   It’s incredible that we’re talking about negotiating at all since it’s the Bush administration that created the dilemma in the first place.

   SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

4. Robert
   January 9, 2007 - 10:55 AM on January 9th, 2007

   Yes! It is all the Bush administration’s fault, they clearly lied! I’m so happy that the opposition stayed firm and resolute! Thank goodness they all voted against the invasion of Iraq! I am so gratified that John Kerry, in many speeches, stated the truth; that Saddam/Iraq was not a threat, that Saddam had no WMD, that the best course was to hold off! Even Sen. Clinton, the smartest woman in America (until Speaker Pelosi) stated publically that we should go slow, leave Saddam in place, and that Saddam/Iraq was really not a threat to the U.S. or the region!

   All of the above proves you’re right, Eben! It just does!

   (psssst…except it’s bullshit)

5. Robert
   January 9, 2007 - 10:56 AM on January 9th, 2007

   SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

   
   HAS ANYONE

6. Robert
   January 9, 2007 - 10:57 AM on January 9th, 2007

   EVER

7. Robert
   January 9, 2007 - 10:57 AM on January 9th, 2007

   SAID THAT HE WAS?

8. BonBon
   January 9, 2007 - 12:44 PM on January 9th, 2007

   Robert…with Eben it’s an effort at futility. She looks only at the facts that suit her purpose. Of course Bush never said Saddam was a threat (and if she had actually listened to his speeches she would have heard him say the exact opposite) but that wouldn’t have fit her facts. But if we’re talking not being in the region to begin with, well we have to go back about 80 years. But we HAVE to blame Bush. Right?

9. BonBon
   January 9, 2007 - 12:45 PM on January 9th, 2007

   above post edit. “she would have heard him say the exact opposite,” opposite meaning SADDAM WAS NOT A PART OF 9/11.

10. PCD
    January 9, 2007 - 02:31 PM on January 9th, 2007

    Eben is the knothead here. I wonder if Eben would get it if he/she were the subject of the joke?

11. Robert
    January 9, 2007 - 02:53 PM on January 9th, 2007

    Eben is a woman? I never caught that part.

    But yes, BLAME BUSH! If one can blame Bush for causing hurricane Katrina* (and indirectly many did) then it isn’t a stretch to blame Bush for anything and everything.

    * And if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, Katrina would NOT have happened because Al would have stopped Global Warming by then!

12. BonBon
    January 9, 2007 - 03:00 PM on January 9th, 2007

    It was my assumption Eben was a woman although I don’t know why I got that. At any rate having worked around liberals for a long time I can honestly vouch for the fact that they tend to blame everything on Bush (Bush senior and Reagan before that.) In a way it was a better atmosphere during the Clinton years because of course no one was to blame for anything happening and no one was complaining. Everything was peachy keen.

    But it wasn’t until 9/11 that I was astonished that they behaved the way they did and to this day liberals still amaze me in their naivete. And these were people who held PhD’s.

    Go figure.

13. TedintheShed
    January 9, 2007 - 03:14 PM on January 9th, 2007

    “This isn’t about ‘war protesting’. It’s about failure and lies and the administration’s refusal to admit fault in the first place.”

    Absolutely correct- President Carter should admit his failure and take full blame for the middle east crisis that we have to confront today.

    Again, I will challenge you to back your assertion regarding “lies”.

14. Robert
    January 9, 2007 - 06:30 PM on January 9th, 2007

    #12 BonBon Isn’t it amazing how they do 180s on just about everything when their side is not in the White House/majority?

    I have criticized Bush policy when I thought it was called for. Others have here too. But our opponents accuse us of lock-step, unwavering support. I guess it makes them feel better.

15. BonBon
    January 9, 2007 - 08:26 PM on January 9th, 2007

    I know what you mean Robert. Believe it or not I was not real happy when GWB was the candidate in 2000. Didn’t know much about him and I had started to perceive the terrorist threat as being more than something insignificant.

    He didn’t disappoint though although there are some other things I wish he would do differently.

    The liberals handle things entirely different. Let’s just say their attitude is more judgemental and superior. They do no wrong and they NEVER admit it when one of their politicians do wrong. On this website I read what the liberals write and it comes out here as well.

    Honestly, how on earth is there ever going to be serious debate with things as they are?

16. San Francisco Liberal
    January 9, 2007 - 09:04 PM on January 9th, 2007

    “At any rate having worked around liberals for a long time I can honestly vouch for the fact that they tend to blame everything on Bush”

    Oh, please. And NOBODY on the Right says that about Carter or Clinton?

    Gimme a break.

17. San Francisco Liberal
    January 9, 2007 - 09:08 PM on January 9th, 2007

    “Honestly, how on earth is there ever going to be serious debate with things as they are?”

    There probably won’t ever be one again. At least, not for another few generations.

    “Scorched Earth” partisan politics of the 1990’s has pretty much put an end to that lofty ideal.

18. Sandy
    January 10, 2007 - 05:57 AM on January 10th, 2007

    This is long but I liked it.

    How to Negotiate With Terrorists

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, “why did you kill my friend?” The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, “Stop that!” The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, “I’ll pay you $1000 if you stop attacking us.” The terrorist agrees to the deal, takes the $1000, and kills him.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker appeals to the United Nations. The United Nations says the peacemaker is at fault. The terrorist kills him.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker now has a gun, and threatens to use it. Other peacemakers start chanting the old 60’s whine, “Can’t we all just get along?” The peacemaker hesitates. The terrorist kills him.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker tries to convince his peacemaker friends that the terrorists aren’t going to respond to negotiations, but they insist that if he kills the terrorist it’ll just make the other terrorists mad. The peacemaker reluctantly agrees to try negotiating again. The terrorist kills him., his entire family, and his neighbor’s family.

    A heated debate now ensues between the peacemakers who want to be nice to the terrorists and the peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead. While they are debating, the terrorists kill 15 more peacemakers.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks himself, “Which is more important: being liked by everyone, or protecting my family?” The terrorist pulls a knife to kill the peacemaker, but the peacemaker pulls a gun and kills the terrorist first. The United Nations condemns the peacemaker’s use of unproportional force. Many of his peacemaker friends turn against him.

    A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker apologizes for what his friend did to the other terrorist. The terrorist kills him, his entire family and his neighbors, and threatens to destroy the city as soon as they develop a bigger weapon.

    A peacemaker refuses to meet at the line because every time a peacemaker goes to the line the terrorist kills him. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line and fires rockets into the peacemaker’s town. The United Nations condemns the way the peacemaker provoked the terrorist by refusing to come to the line and meet with him.

    Generations pass and not much changes until one day when the son of a peacemaker decides that the old strategy simply won’t work. He walks up to the left side of the line a little early. As the terrorist approaches the right side of the line the peacemaker shoots him. Another terrorist approaches to replace the first, and the peacemaker shoots him too. This scene plays out several more times. Then a terrorist approaches carrying a white flag, but he also has weapons. The peacemaker shoots him. A terrorist next approaches with a ceasefire resolution from the U.N. The peacemaker shoots him also. A large group of terrorists approach and the peacemaker shoots them all and drops a nuclear bomb on the city they came from. The peacemaker continues killing the terrorists until the terrorists are all dead.

    There is finally peace on earth and the United Nations takes the credit.

    I found this here.

19. BonBon
    January 10, 2007 - 08:49 AM on January 10th, 2007

    That was great Sandy. And oh so true. These guys want NOTHING from us except our deaths. That is what the liberals don’t get when all is said and done. Thanks for posting.

20. PCD
    January 10, 2007 - 08:59 AM on January 10th, 2007

    You know, if being wrong only cost the liberals their lives, then I could go with cutting and running from Iraq, but the reality is that the liberals will get millions killed across the world and blame it on anyone and everyone else but themselves and their appeasment policies.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Right Voices uses Gravatar to display individual comment author icons. If you'd like your own icon next to your name, then go to Gravatar.com and sign up - it's easy!

more »

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail