Thursday, June 15, 2006

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.


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."


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

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.


At 6/15/2006 9:02 PM, Blogger HonestAbe said...

If memory serves, we shot or hung Nazis who refused to surrender, but we did "De-Nazify" Germany by putting some of the soldiers back to work in Germany. So, I think hanging or shooting the ringleaders is a good idea, but I don't know about the second half.

Have you seen any other stories on this? I'm curious as to how many they're planning on turning loose and how they plan to do it. And ESPECIALLY WHEN. No way they turn anyone loose while we have boots on the ground in the hot zone.

At 6/15/2006 9:30 PM, Blogger Carnivore said...

Abe, from what I gather from the article, it is to give a "pardon" of such to those that have killed US troops, but not Iraqi civilians. The question is... how are they to know for sure... just take one's word for it? As I stated, this just seems to me to be nothing more than a "diplomatic puff line" in hopes of unification. If this does work than it mean the country will be one more step to stand up for itself in every aspect.
Thsi in turn also means that we can pull out the troops (minus those needed at the Embassy, and light support for the Iraqis) and briong them home. Now when this will happen.... well do you have your crystal ball?


At 6/16/2006 1:52 AM, Blogger Johnny said...

As a veteran, I have a personal problem with granting amnesty to bastards who may have killed or maimed Americans. Just a pet peeve I guess.

Also, if Iraq is taking control of its own government, doesn't Bush's "surprise" visit thumb his nose at them? After all, not telling the prime minister of a country that the U.S. president will be visiting until he lands on the tarmac is a bit disrespectful.

At 6/16/2006 8:39 AM, Blogger Carnivore said...

I too have certian reservations as a vet as well. In resepct to Bush's visit, I do believe that there was comunication to the PM prior to him leaving the US. This was not put out to the public until after he was already there. The metting originally was just to be a video conference. Remember the press release with Tony Snow and the reporters trying to get information about this meeting that was to happen at Camp David. H ejust said that there was going to be one, and cetian people were to be involved, But he had not said anything else. It looks to me that the PM knew before hand that Bush was coming. So in this light, I would say that it was not a thumbing at all.
Thanks for visit, come back anytime.


At 6/16/2006 1:17 PM, Blogger HonestAbe said...

I can see both sides as clear as a bell. And I sure as shooting would rather see those guys hanged than scooting around with a normal, disability free life after the war.

I guess what I was pointing to in my comment was that sometimes "political realities" trump justice. Now what will irritate me to no end would be to see bonafide terrorists set loose.

Here's the long route. If the guy was a legitimate member of the Iraqi Army carrying out orders and captured prior to Saddam being captured, then he could make a case, even in a US military tribunal that he was functioning as a legitimate member of an opposing armed force prior to the surrender of that force.

After Saddam's capture, his case evaporates. What I DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES see an argument for is freeing Jordanian, Syrian, Saudi or other foreign nationals who came to fight the U.S. Their countries were NOT at war with the U.S. and they have no case. The risked their necks on a Saddam win, they should be forced to pay up.

But I wasn't saying I wanted to see anyone who harmed an American walk. I was just saying that it has happened before and it will probably happen again here, unless someone wakes up to the fact that, unlike Germany after World war II, these guys can just go to another theatre and rejoin the action.

Sorry if I was unclear.

At 6/16/2006 5:28 PM, Blogger Carnivore said...

You make a good and just case. The looming problem is just how the people will be determined. With the upheavel that the country has seen it only is fair to say... anything goes. What will happen is that they will probably just take the word of a man. As for the outsiders.. I agree with you there. Hang em high. What I do see happening as well, is that even if there are some Iraqis that did fight/maim/kill US troops, that there are just as many that are going to "gun" for them at the first chance they get. This will only tell as time passes what wil come of this announcement.

As you said... we (the US) will get burned again... politics .. no Justice.

Yet in a war, a soldier knows there is no such thing. We know that it is a war, regardless of whom may be the agressor. We really do not hold any feelings of Justice for our brothers in arms. But only want to keep them alive and away from harm. Kill the enemy before they kill us.


More to come about this declaration.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home