Anyone visiting this blog knows my unquestioned support of the Bush administration, my conservative beliefs and support for the worldwide war on terror. Below I posted about public criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai concerning U.S. and coalition troops. It's my belief he is caving in to public pressure and putting aside private meetings to air his grievances, legitimate or not.
Now the Iraq government is going to announce a 28-point amnesty plan to insurgents in an attempt to quell violence.
The TimesOnline is reporting: The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms.
The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.
It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of “de-Baathification” and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The deal, which has been seen by The Times, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda. It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups.
But one big potential obstacle is whether the US would be willing to grant an amnesty to insurgents who have killed US soldiers but who are not members of extreme groups such as al-Qaeda. The Bush Administration is thought to be split on the issue.
“This is very hard for us, particularly at a time when American servicemen are facing prosecution for alleged war crimes — and others are being captured and tortured,” a senior US official said.
With 2,500 US soldiers having died in Iraq, to grant an amnesty would be a “huge political football” before the November mid-term elections in the US, he said. But he added: “This is what we did after the Second World War, after the Civil War, after the War of Independence. It may be unpalatable and unsavoury but it is how wars end.”
The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, a key demand of the Sunni insurgency.
Does this mean the closing down of Guantanamo Bay, and how does a reconciliation provide amnesty to insurgents who have killed innocent civilians and recently tortured U.S. troops? What has happened to rule of law? Looking back on previous wars when we are fighting non-uniformed insurgents who are not applying rules of war seems like hypocrisy and giving in to the enemy. What happened to the refusal to negotiate with terrorists? Iraqi or al-Qaeda, an insurgent is a terrorist and this plan is highly suspect.
Comparing alleged atrocities of U.S. troops to the tactics of insurgents and then providing amnesty to the insurgents while military personnel face court martials and prison terms, in some cases the death penalty.
The following statement makes one wonder who liberated who and where is any appreciation to the United States: (Blue italics for emphasis)
The Government (Iraqi) intends to form a committee to distinguish between groups that can be considered legitimate resistance and those that are beyond the pale. “For those that defended their country against foreign troops, we need to open a new page . . . They did not mean to destabilise Iraq. They were defending Iraqi soil,” said Adnan Ali, a senior member of the Dawa party of Nouri al Maliki, the Prime Minister.
When did these Iraqi "defenders" decide fighting the troops that liberated Iraq from tyranny was a just cause and legitimate? Were these "fighters" also killing civilians? Where is the line drawn?