And the Paris talks begin
: The Times of London says the U.S. is in continuing talks with Iraqi insurgents.
17 responses to “And the Paris talks begin”
-
Dude, this is old. I mean, like, months old. Right up to the minister of electricity. Where have you been?
-
Yes, there’ve been on-and-off talks reported. Perhaps I’m being influenced by the Times of London playing it as the top story.
-
Hey I thought we didn’t negotiate with insurgents. Or was it terrorists.
-
Only when the poll numbers are down, Linda.
-
We didn’t “nation build,” either. But sometimes pragmatism in the name of accomplishing the goals is necessary.
Negotiating with Osama and Zarqawi would be pointless. We all know that. Negotiating with less explicitly religious groups within Iraq (the ones, perhaps, that could honestly be called “insurgents,” for are not Zarqawi and his band of murderers as much of an “invader” as the United States military?) in attempts to reconcile them with the political reality there and attempting to bring them into the political process seems both wise and potentially far more fruitful than simply continuing to fight them.
Far too many people in the media and elsewhere seem unwilling or unable to make a meaningful distinction between out-and-out jihadists like Zarqawi and the many smaller groups of anti-American or Ba’athist groups who’re also engaging in attacks. One group can, potentially, be reasoned with and possibly even convinced to disarm.
The other is exactly the sort of terrorist who flew into the World Trade Center and has no real problems killing anyone, Muslim or not, who stands between them and their rather unsavory goals.
It’s high time that distinction starts being made and understood. -
>Hey I thought we didn’t negotiate with
>insurgents. Or was it terrorists.
If they were just holding hostages then no we don’t negotiate with them but *gasp* they are holding oil prices hostage with their bombing of iraqi pipelines so shrub must act. -
Uh. Heh.
I guess all that increased demand for oil from China and India don’t have much to do with it, huh?
Old conspiracies die hard, I guess. -
Nice of them to talk with us, after all the promises we’ve broken historically. I’m not so concerned about the US being seen as countenancing questionable elements. I’m concerned the US will further bumble into commitments it won’t keep.
-
Ruth,
Do you share the terrorists main objective of negotiating a fixed timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq? -
HA – and if she does?
-
Of course you negotiate with the ones willing to lay down their arms.
That’s how you win insurgencies.
Please see: UK in Ireland. -
the US presence in Iraq keeps having the strange, unpleasant aftertastes of something that was actually meant to be as humiliatinig (for everyone) as it needed to be for the “right objectives” to be obtained.
and it’s not just about manipulating the news and making promises you can’t keep. it’s about continuing an insanely imperialistic vision of the world and being surprized when the world doesn’t really like it. (check out, for instance, this small video). changing back and forth from “terrorists” to “insurgent” is a beautiful sign of how much indifference these “gestures of good will” contain. -
Michael Zimmer,
and if she does?
Then the burden will be on her to explain how it is possible to share the strategy of the terrorists, but with diametrically opposed objectives.
The more likely explanation on the part of those recommending a unilateral timetable for American withdrawal is that they share the same objective with the terrorists – American defeat. But I will listen to an alternative explanation and consider it on its merits.
But I don’t think I’ll get one because I don’t think there is one. -
HA: I supported this war, but that’s a bogus question.
I might as well ask you: “Do you share the terrorists’ main objective of the eventual withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq? ”
Fininding an are of commonality does imply commonality of motives or intent. The insurgents want to drive the Americans out and rule Iraq. The people here who want withdrawal want Irawis to take over their own affairs and handle the insurgency. Yeesh. -
Jeremy,
If the question is bogus, then somebody should be able to easily answer it. Somebody should be able to identify the false premise or the flawed logic behind the question. Yet nobody I have posed this question to has even ATTEMPTED to answer it. On the contrary, they studiously DODGE the question.
Do YOU want to take a crack at it? -
Perhaps, HA, some people are proposing a timetable because they know this administration only acts when it’s back is to the wall and feet are held to the fire. I mean really, at this rate, it could go on forever. More concerning is when Bush says we going to “stay the course”. Well, the course keeps going ’round in circles.
Suggestion #1 (not kidding) – Stop being obstinate and ACCEPT Rumsfeld’s resignation. We desperately need a fresh approach and new ideas.
BTW, I’m not saying I’m necessarily in favor of a timetable. Some days I am, most days I’m not. That could change at any day. -
Linda,
A premature American withdrawal from Iraq would be a huge tactical victory for Al Qaeda and state sponsors of terror like Syria and Iran. Their victory would be translated into huge strategic gains on behalf of the global jihad. Bin Laden himself has stated that Al Qaeda’s strategy is built around the belief that America is a paper tiger that no longer has the will to stand and fight. Our withdrawal would be further proof of this concept.
The precedent is the withdrawal from Som*alia which in hindsight has proven disasterious. It was on the basis of our withdrawal that Al Qaeda could claim that defeating America was a realistic goal. Back then, America did not understand that we were fighting the opening skirmish in a global jihad. Now, in this post 9/11 world, we no longer have ignorance as an excuse. America simply CANNOT show that kind of weakness again.
Withdrawal is not even remotely a viable option. It would be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the withdawal from Som*alia and would even dwarf the horrible consequences of our withdrawal from Vietnam.
I just cannot understand how anybody could propose withdrawal as a serious option. It would be like setting a 6 month withdrawal deadline on D-Day.
