BEIRUT -- Sorry for the radio silence. I've been hard at work on a story about Iranian influence in Lebanon and what it means for the region, and I've not had much time to blog.
But this new reconciliation plan from Maliki is interesting, to say the least. Possible amnesty for killers of U.S. troops? No firm time-table for withdrawal, but Casey says significant troop reductions by end of 2007. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in American domestic politics. It seems, at first blush, to hand the Democrats much of what they're asking for (conditions-based plan for redeployment), but it also seems to take away the Republicans' and George Bush's "Dems are 'cut-and-runners'" card. I suspect the GOP will do an about face, say it's what they wanted all along and run with it.
At least, that would be the smart thing to do. What remains to be seen is whether the Sunni insurgents will buy into this. I have a feeling a good portion will, although how significant that portion will be is unclear. "To those who want to rebuild our country, we present an olive branch ... And to those who insist on killing and terrorism, we present a fist with the power of law to protect our country and people,'' Maliki told Parliament.
This deal has been in the works for a long time, since November 2004, actually. Michael Ware of TIME, now CNN, reported on the secret negotiations between the Ba'athists and the then-Allawi government and the U.S. military commanders. If Maliki is announcing this, there's a fair chance that most of the kinks have been ironed out. You don't drop this on a war-weary public if it doesn't have a fair chance of working.
This is a sketchy entry, I know, but more on this later... Discuss amongst yourselves if you wish.
The 2007 plan for withdrawl expressed by Gen. Casey mirrors that HREF=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901237.html”>described by Iraq National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie as he stated;
“We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.”
And this thought was immediately followed by;
“The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the “coalition occupation.” If the sectarian issue continues to cause conflict with Iraq’s neighbors, this matter needs to be addressed urgently and openly — not in the guise of aversion to the presence of foreign troops.”
If Mr. Rubaie were a US politician expressing his views on the floor of Congress during the most recent “debate” on the US presence in Iraq, it would be interesting to see the reaction to his words. As he is “only” the Iraqi National Security Advisor, few US partisans seem to take the time to listen.
“You don’t drop this on a war-weary public if it doesn’t have a chance of working.”
Uh, huh. Certainly not. Whether you’re talking about the Iraqi public or the one here in the U.S…. if one thing is clear it’s that they won’t stand for insincerity in government officials. You can’t get away with bogus claims,craftily-obscured designs, promises failed and never meant to be kept, suggesting mutually exclusive intentions, or filling the air with smoke and the wild darting of reflections in every direction from a thousand mirrors.
Skeptical, that’s exactly what the Bush administration has been doing, for its entire existence. And they’ve gotten more from that than most politicians get from honesty.
Just wondering, since you both are hanging about/around Beirut, have you contacted Michael Totten?