Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Islamic Army in Iraq" Holding Secret Talks with US Officials in Jordan

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,453
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +914 / 7 / -3

    An interesting bit of news.


    ‘Islamic Army in Iraq’ Holding Secret Talks with US Officials in Jordan


    20 October 2006 | 09:25 | FOCUS News Agency

    Amman: Rebel grouping ‘Islamic Army in Iraq’, which is one of the biggest terrorist organizations in the country, has been holding secret talks with a US delegation in Jordanian capital Amman in the last two days, online edition of Al Hayat newspaper reads.
    According to reliable sources the talks are also attended by representatives of the Sunnis in Iraq.
    The talks have been organized by Washington which wants to help stabilize the situation in the country.




    Found this regarding the matter but little else. This offers some interesting perspective on what is going on.


    US negotiating with Iraqi insurgency

    Al-Hayat reports that American officials have been talking in Amman to representatives of Jaysh al-Islami (The Islamic Army), the largest armed faction of the Sunni insurgency. A senior leader of Jaysh al-Islami told al-Hayat that the Americans had responded positively to its call for negotiations. Salim Abdullah al-Jabouri, a member of the Sunni Parliamentary al-Tuwafaq bloc currently in Amman, confirmed the talks to al-Hayat, adding that they had not yet reached the level of "negotiations" but could be heading that way. Iraqi Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashmi, also in Amman, told a press conference that talks between the US and various Sunni factions were ongoing, and vaguely mentioned that different factions had responded differently.

    Assuming that al-Hayat's sources are right about these negotiations... and considering the context of escalating American combat casualties and the admitted failure of the Baghdad security plan; horrifying levels of Sunni-Shia civil war, including Muqtada al-Sadr's evident seizure of a mixed city; the forthcoming Baker proposals to change US policy; the recent passage of the controversial new Iraqi federalism law; the al-Qaeda declaration of an Iraqi Islamic State, which may have been a PR stunt but which did elicit an angry denunciation from Jaysh al-Islami; and reported recent proposals from Saddam's key aide and Baathi insurgency organizer Ibrahim al-Duri for negotiations with the US, does this suggest....

    1)The US continuing its long-standing policy of trying to split the insurgency and bring the more acceptable parts of the Sunni community in to the existing Iraqi political system - perhaps by hammering down the terms of the amnesty agreement which has been under discussion for a while.

    2)The US beginning to implement Stephen Biddle's proposal to tilt towards the Sunnis in the escalating civil war in order to achieve an inter-ethnic balance of power and force the Shia and Kurds to a more serious negotiating position.

    3)The US exploring partition options, and checking out who might rule the Sunni part and how.

    4)The US looking to negotiate the terms of its surrender to the insurgency.

    Which is it? Or are there other possibilities?



    http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/10/us_negotiating_.html
     
  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I thought it was US policy not to negotiate with terrorists?
     
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,623
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +469 / 12 / -14

    I have read that there were deals made with Sunni tribal chiefs in Western Iraq and that they were interested in getting rid of Al Queda elements in their regions.

    The rse in violence is part of jockeying for position for the future.
     
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,453
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +914 / 7 / -3

    Of course it is. Do you think that it doesn't happen? Just like we don't "communicate" with Iran. We never do it publically, but we certainly have backdoor channels of communication. This case is a bit different. These are militia's and not necessarily "terrorists" akin to Al-Queda.
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,453
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +914 / 7 / -3

    There is a real issue over there with the militias. The hope was that Malaki, could help disarm them since he had some ethnic ties to the major militia players. Word was they were going to disarm the militias and incorporate them into the army. Any tentative agreement fell through when the militias balked at not being guaranteed deployment to their native provinces. Furthermore, Al-Sadr, the main problem man, isn't going to disarm unless dead. It looks as if we may oblige him in the near future.

    As for western Iraq, you are correct. The tribes are unifying against Al-Queda and joining forces with the coalition to enforce order.
     
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey


    my bad, REAL WORLD ....

    tongue and cheek translates over message boards about as good as sarcasm ... I agree with you.
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,623
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +469 / 12 / -14

    The situation withthe Shia militias (read Sadr) is troubling, and then there is the involvement of Iran with them, don't know if Sistani and Maliki can rein Sadr in.
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,453
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +914 / 7 / -3

    They can't. Sistani is mortified by Sadr. At least from what I've read. The people in these areas, well a good portion, also dislike Sadr. It seems that the US is fearful of sustaining the casualties that might come with engaging the Mahdi Army. Politically it would be extremely negative for the Administration. My guess is post election the gloves may come off a little bit, and Al-Sadr will get his confrontation. We'll see. The mil blogs I frequent seem to want to ***** slap the guy. We'll see.
     
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,623
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +469 / 12 / -14

    We should have taken Sadr out a couple of years ago when he was cornered.
     
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,453
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +914 / 7 / -3


    I agree. I think at the time the thinking was that his termination would result in more violence. Personally, the increased violence would have been an acceptable result. Of course, that assumes that killing Sadr would mean no one else would rise up to take his place. Hindsight is 20/20, but lets not forget what killing him right after "liberation" would have looked like too. Here you are in 2003-04, telling everyone your here to bring democracy and freedom, yet you go and murder a contrarian voice. How's that look? At this point, at least people can see that he is a bad dude who most want out. Again, there have been some grave mistakes in the post war strategy, you could chalk this up as one, although its not as bad as deBa'athification, or the mother of all fugg ups, the termination of the Army. To me, that is the #1 reason why we have problems over there.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>