oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Mohammed, an Iraqi on the ground in Iraq, posted this at his at "IraqtheModel" blog about the Cairo 'timetable'...
"No government in this world acts 100% independently and there are always internal and/or external factors and pressures that affect the decisions of any given government.
That’s why I think that Iraqi officials wouldn’t have agreed to the opposition’s demands if not for pressure from the US administration and I have a strong feeling that the US will announce a timetable for withdrawing the troops soon.
I think the US administration kind of drove the Sunni insurgency leaders to ask for this in a way that allowed the Iraqi and US government the chance to win a good deal of time while they can reach a reasonable progress in building Iraq’s army and police forces.
Everyone wants to see an end for violence but this violence comes from more than one group of fighters; one (al-Qaeda) can be dealt with only by military means but what about the other two? The local Islamic extremists, tribal fighters and former Ba’athists are also tired of fighting and they do want the power they lost (at least some of it) back and they had realized that there’s no way to do that with violence but they kept carrying out attacks as a way to voice their demands and to pressurize the US and Iraqi government to respond positively.
On the other hand, Iraqi and American governments kept saying that putting a timetable for pulling the troops (let alone an immediate step) would empower the terrorists and thus was considered a redline for a long time but now things have changed; Sunni insurgents and the factions that support them are saying that they are going to join the political process and they’re ready to stop targeting Iraqis if a timetable was defined and if their right to “resist” was recognized. [emphasis added]
Now, I don’t agree at all with legitimizing attacks on coalition troops but does legitimizing or illegitimating them make a difference in the on the ground situation? They have been attacking the troops for two and a half years and they will keep doing so whether we like or not…BUT, now Iraqi insurgents will not be able to justify or adopt an attack against Iraqi civilians and incase they do so in the future, they and their representatives and supporters will lose their bargaining power because it would be them who violated the agreement, not the government. Add to this that a period of cease-fire among Iraqis can possibly accelerate the reconstruction of the country and its security forces and this will consequently reflect on the size and number of missions required from the foreign troops."
...
If this moves as I’m expecting here, we will deal a powerful blow to foreign terrorism and to dictatorships in the neighborhood that want to destroy Iraq.
Giving everyone the chance to have their say under the law will certainly isolate terrorism and consequently reduce its power but not ending it.
IraqtheModel
Seems to me that all parties should view this postively. If indeed this is a move that is successful in bringing Sunni's more into the political process with a resulting cessation or at least a marked diminution of Sunni insurgency, then Al Qaeda becomes just that much more isolated from Iraqis.
Further attacks by Al Qaeda on innocent civilians should produce more antagonism on the part of Iraqis toward Al Qaeda terrorists which could go a long way toward kicking them out of the country and enhancing the chances for stability.
I think what we're looking for here is 1) a successful election on December 15, 2) installation of a new gov't for a 4-year term, 3) an agreement between the new govt and the US for the withdrawal of US troops over some agreed upon period of time, 4) continued presence of a contingent of US troops just 'over the horizon' just in case they are needed, 5) plans to increase and/or facilitate a more rapid build-up of Iraqi forces (the coalition will supply more equipment and training, perhaps along with some token assistance from NATO countries - with an announced timetable for the US out and a new Iraqi govt in, that might now be possible), and 6) the recognition of some contingencies that would call for the halting of the withdrawal and re-introduction of US troops.
It is a lot of speculation on my part, and perhaps even some wishful thinking. But it sort of hangs together, doesn't it?
"No government in this world acts 100% independently and there are always internal and/or external factors and pressures that affect the decisions of any given government.
That’s why I think that Iraqi officials wouldn’t have agreed to the opposition’s demands if not for pressure from the US administration and I have a strong feeling that the US will announce a timetable for withdrawing the troops soon.
I think the US administration kind of drove the Sunni insurgency leaders to ask for this in a way that allowed the Iraqi and US government the chance to win a good deal of time while they can reach a reasonable progress in building Iraq’s army and police forces.
Everyone wants to see an end for violence but this violence comes from more than one group of fighters; one (al-Qaeda) can be dealt with only by military means but what about the other two? The local Islamic extremists, tribal fighters and former Ba’athists are also tired of fighting and they do want the power they lost (at least some of it) back and they had realized that there’s no way to do that with violence but they kept carrying out attacks as a way to voice their demands and to pressurize the US and Iraqi government to respond positively.
On the other hand, Iraqi and American governments kept saying that putting a timetable for pulling the troops (let alone an immediate step) would empower the terrorists and thus was considered a redline for a long time but now things have changed; Sunni insurgents and the factions that support them are saying that they are going to join the political process and they’re ready to stop targeting Iraqis if a timetable was defined and if their right to “resist” was recognized. [emphasis added]
Now, I don’t agree at all with legitimizing attacks on coalition troops but does legitimizing or illegitimating them make a difference in the on the ground situation? They have been attacking the troops for two and a half years and they will keep doing so whether we like or not…BUT, now Iraqi insurgents will not be able to justify or adopt an attack against Iraqi civilians and incase they do so in the future, they and their representatives and supporters will lose their bargaining power because it would be them who violated the agreement, not the government. Add to this that a period of cease-fire among Iraqis can possibly accelerate the reconstruction of the country and its security forces and this will consequently reflect on the size and number of missions required from the foreign troops."
...
If this moves as I’m expecting here, we will deal a powerful blow to foreign terrorism and to dictatorships in the neighborhood that want to destroy Iraq.
Giving everyone the chance to have their say under the law will certainly isolate terrorism and consequently reduce its power but not ending it.
IraqtheModel
Seems to me that all parties should view this postively. If indeed this is a move that is successful in bringing Sunni's more into the political process with a resulting cessation or at least a marked diminution of Sunni insurgency, then Al Qaeda becomes just that much more isolated from Iraqis.
Further attacks by Al Qaeda on innocent civilians should produce more antagonism on the part of Iraqis toward Al Qaeda terrorists which could go a long way toward kicking them out of the country and enhancing the chances for stability.
I think what we're looking for here is 1) a successful election on December 15, 2) installation of a new gov't for a 4-year term, 3) an agreement between the new govt and the US for the withdrawal of US troops over some agreed upon period of time, 4) continued presence of a contingent of US troops just 'over the horizon' just in case they are needed, 5) plans to increase and/or facilitate a more rapid build-up of Iraqi forces (the coalition will supply more equipment and training, perhaps along with some token assistance from NATO countries - with an announced timetable for the US out and a new Iraqi govt in, that might now be possible), and 6) the recognition of some contingencies that would call for the halting of the withdrawal and re-introduction of US troops.
It is a lot of speculation on my part, and perhaps even some wishful thinking. But it sort of hangs together, doesn't it?