It seems to me the US has been largely beating its head against a brick wall when it comes to Iraq. The only solution has been to add troops, step up security. Many have seen the folly and have advocated withdrawals of US troops - either from the front lines, or from Iraq altogether. No proposed solution has seemed satisfactory.
So, how about a cease fire? Seems like a good idea to me.
U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease- fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he has authorized commanders to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals.
"We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.
Its a brief article, but surely the US must be offering things in return - like not conducting operations in insurgent strongholds. I'm merely speculating.
However, this does provide the opportunity for some breathing space, an chance for ordinary Iraqis to go about their daily lives. Significantly, it also provides a new opportunity for a national reconciliation.
Will the cease-fire work? Who knows, probably not. But, I'm giving a big thumbs up to giving a try at something new, something that involves less killing.
5 comments:
Sure Ron, you only think so because you're part of the "surrender" crowd.
We must WIN! Remember? WIN! You can't win with a cease fire. You got to kill the enemy. [/sarcasm]
On a serious note, why would they agree to a cease fire if what they want is us out of Iraq and the only way to do it is to keep the chaos going?
Hi Victorm, Thanks for the comment. You wrote: "On a serious note, why would they agree to a cease fire if what they want is us out of Iraq and the only way to do it is to keep the chaos going?"
That's a good question - what's in it for them? You know, I really don't know what the answer is. I do know that BushCo has waged an intense propaganga campaign against the insurgency, so its hard for me to comment on what their legitimate gripes are versus some gut reaction that wants to neutron bomb them out of existence.
Still, I would presume the Sunni insurgents - not the relatively small number of AQ jihaddi revolutionaries - have legitimate fears of seeing their traditional roles with the Shia being switched from master to serf. I would also imagine that many of them are damned sick of the war. I'm interested to hear your opinion on this - as well as others reading this.
My inclination is to be suspicious. Considering that Bu$hCo is in league with Al Qaeda groups in Iran, trying to destabilize that nation, I'd take anything his minions say with a ton, not a grain, of salt.
This looks like propaganda of the Bush kind.
To answer victorm, why not a ceasefire? If it held for awhile the US would start leaving and is that not what they really want?
Let's see--you do not use your time in conflict, but use it to solidify your position politically and would not that be more preferrable than death, if you are looking to set up an Islamic State Of Iraq?
Personally, I think it will not happen.
Post a Comment