Iraqi Amnesty for Killers of US troops?

With my innards stretched taught with the flesh of a tasty critter that is now resting solemnly in my gullet, I scurried hither and nether looking for some more suculent morsels to place here today. I took another jaunt to Just citizens to read what they had replied to me and found a link to Q&O.
At Q&O (Cocktail sausage tossed) the discussion is ongoing about the news report found in the Washington Post. The inflammatory clause for such a discussion is:

Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab
insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be
released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had
attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.
Maliki's declaration of
openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of
pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The
statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious
parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with
armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

An interesting thought to ponder exactly what this could mean. Think about this for a second, is this meaning the Iraq is just thumbing their collective noses at the US, or are they actually taking more control over their own land, and more importantly their future how they see fit? Is this not what the US strategy has been, for them to be able to do this? I think this is exactly what it has been. Do the Iraqis actually intend for us to look at them like they are showing their bumms to us. No.

My take on this is similar to what McQ's is over at Q&O. That is that the infantile Iraqi government is attempting to mend fences between its diverse sects in an act of unity for the wellbeing of the country's future. After all (Cocktail sausage tossed to Q&O), one needs only to look at CNN's report dated June 14 to see that the new government is taking matters into its own hands, and seriously I might add. The coalition forces are now playing an ever shrinking role in operations now. Look at the numbers in the report.

Iraqi troops Wednesday uncovered a kidnapping ring,
seized weapons -- including three rockets -- and defused two roadside bombs
after beginning a security clampdown on the often lawless streets of Baghdad.

[snip]

Four insurgents were detained at one checkpoint after
three people emerged from a car "screaming for help," said Maj. Gen. William
Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.
"We found eight people that
had been kidnapped now for four days that we were able to return back under
control of the Iraqi government," Caldwell said. "They worked for an electrical
company down south of Baghdad."

[snip]

Hours after the operation began,
President Bush said at a news conference in Washington that 26,000 Iraqi troops
and 23,000 Iraqi police will be backed by about 7,200 U.S.-led coalition
troops.

Now doesn't this paint a little different picture? Now you take into account that President Bush and Maliki both met face to face in an unprecedented surprise visit, and one can see a little better that the progress in Iraq's struggle for independence is happening. It looks to me like they are start to Kick A's and take names. Way to go!

Now does this concern me about the statement in regards to the US troops? Yes it does, but looking a little deeper I see that as just fluff words to ease the tension. Typical diplomacy in tense times. Isn't it our goal to have victory in Iraq and bring the troops home? Of course, and I see these recent events as a positive move towards the goal.

Did you notice the typical left-wing snideness in the article?

Carnivore munching off.