Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Iraqi Insurgents Offer Peace for U.S. Concessions

By Robert Fisk, The Independent UK. Posted February 10, 2007.


For the first time, Sunni insurgents disclose their conditions for ceasefire in Iraq. The ball is now in Bush's court.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Fisk

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.

The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet -- but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.

Al--Jeelani's group, which also calls itself the "20th Revolution Brigades'', is the military wing of the original insurgent organisation that began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003. The statement is, therefore, of potentially great importance, although it clearly represents only the views of Sunni Muslim fighters.

Shia militias are nowhere mentioned. The demands include the cancellation of the entire Iraqi constitution -- almost certainly because the document, in effect, awards oil-bearing areas of Iraq to Shia and Kurds, but not to the minority Sunni community. Yet the Sunnis remain Washington's principal enemies in the Iraqi war.

"Discussions and negotiations are a principle we believe in to overcome the situation in which Iraqi bloodletting continues," al-Jeelani said in a statement that was passed to The Independent. "Should the Americans wish to negotiate their withdrawal from our country and leave our people to live in peace, then we will negotiate subject to specific conditions and circumstances."

Al-Jeelani suggests the United Nations, the Arab League or the Islamic Conference might lead such negotiations and would have to guarantee the security of the participants.

Then come the conditions:

  • The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as "proof of goodwill.”

  • Recognition "of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people.”

  • An internationally guaranteed timetable for all agreements.

  • The negotiations to take place in public.

  • The resistance "must be represented by a committee comprising the representatives of all the jihadist brigades."

  • The US to be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most senior commander.

It is not difficult to see why the Americans would object to those terms. They will not want to talk to men they have been describing as "terrorists" for the past four years. And if they were ever to concede that the "resistance" represented "the will of the Iraqi people" then their support for the elected Iraqi government would have been worthless.

Indeed, the insurgent leader specifically calls for the "dissolution of the present government and the revoking of the spurious elections and the constitution ..."

He also insists that all agreements previously entered into by Iraqi authorities or US forces should be declared null and void.

But there are other points which show that considerable discussion must have gone on within the insurgency movement -- possibly involving the group's rival, the Iraqi Islamic Army.

They call, for example, for the disbandment of militias and the outlawing of militia organisations -- something the US government has been urging the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do for months.

The terms also include the legalisation of the old Iraqi army, an "Anglo-American commitment to rebuild Iraq and reconstruct all war damage" -- something the occupying powers claim they have been trying to do for a long time -- and integrating "resistance fighters" into the recomposed army.

Al-Jeelani described President George Bush's new plans for countering the insurgents as "political chicanery" and added that "on the field of battle, we do not believe that the Americans are able to diminish the capability of the resistance fighters to continue the struggle to liberate Iraq from occupation. ... The resistance groups are not committing crimes to be granted a pardon by America, we are not looking for pretexts to cease our jihad ... we fight for a divine aim and one of our rights is the liberation and independence of our land of Iraq."

There will, the group says, be no negotiations with Mr Maliki's government because they consider it "complicit in the slaughter of Iraqis by militias, the security apparatus and death squads." But they do call for the unity of Iraq and say they "do not recognise the divisions among the Iraqi people".

It is not difficult to guess any American response to those proposals. But FLN [National Liberation Front] contacts with France during the 1954-62 war of independence by Algeria began with such a series of demands -- equally impossible to meet but which were eventually developed into real proposals for a French withdrawal.

What is unclear, of course, is the degree to which al-Jeelani's statement represents the collective ideas of the Sunni insurgents. And, ominously, no mention is made of al-Qa'ida.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, sunni, insurgents, concessions

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
THE TRUTH vs Politicians
Posted by: wawa on Feb 10, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Raed Jarrar, Iraq Project Director of Global Exchange informed the engaged crowd, “The only hope to end the Iraqi violence is to end the occupation! I am one half Sunni and one half Shia and I am telling you that both secular and religious Iraqis agree that we want our county back! We want the occupation to end, NOW! Sunni’s and Shia’s have lived together for a thousand years and all Bush accomplished was to build a new dictatorship!”

-excerpted Jan. 28, 2007 WAWA BLOG-comment made during Jan. 27, 2007 United for Peace and Justice March on DC
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Phyllis Bennis,
Mid East Analyst, Author, Acitivist stated on Feb 9th during SABEEL Conference in Birmingham, Alabama:
"The truth is that every Iraqi politician that was voted in all campaigned on getting USA forces out. Being politicans, they have not kept their word as they are now all protected by US forces to keep their power."

eileen fleming, civilian journalist and editor WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Resitance becomes political;it will be rejected
Posted by: citizenjoe on Feb 10, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, some of the Iraqi resistance fighters now have sufficient strength and unity to enter the political arena and propose negotiation with the tyrannical occupying power. Perhaps the resistance has new weapons -- portable rockets, land-to-air and land-to-land -- to make ignoring their offers far more painful. They might also judge that political changes in the USA will make greater loses less acceptable. I doubt this. Both the Democrats and Bush are national and economic supremacists. They will not leave Iraq to the Iraqis after having invested so much in a failing adventure to force submission to a government and constitution of subservience to American and British interests and to their dominance of the region. The outlook is for more brutal killing by Americans and by the death-squads they have enlisted to create anarchy and destruction. The American policy is that of attrition and destruction: make the Iraqis willing to submit to the demands of the occupiers. They will not back-off until things become far more costly both politically and militarily. That is the reality

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference between Vietnam and Iraq: the oil
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 10, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That seems to be why the Bush Administration is so unwilling to let go of control in the country - they all have endless ties to Big Oil, for example see BCC 2001 - Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet - Rice, Evans, everyone! as well as ThirdWorldTraveller: Bush & Oil 2002

It's clear that the main obstacle to peace in Iraq is Bush and Cheney and their obssession with controlling Mideast oil. Thus, the really important summit meeting will be the Iraq Oil, Gas & Petrochemical Summit, 17-18 April , Amman, Jordan held under the auspices of the the Iraq Development Program, itself a tool of the IMF - and that story is told at Privatizing Iraq : The IMF and the Economic Invasion"

Needless to say, this crazed behavior on the part of Bush&CO. is starting to alarm the rest of the world, or rather the rest of the world is alarmed, and the rhetoric level is rapidly rising: check out what Putin just had to say:

"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres -- economic, political and humanitarian and has imposed itself on other states," he told delegates at he 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy.

"One-sided illegitimate action hasn't solved a single problem and has become a generator of many human tragedies, a source of tension," Putin said Saturday.

"Local and regional wars didn't get fewer. The number of people who died didn't get less but increased significantly."

The United States, he said, had gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them."

Putin also took aim at US plans to site a missile defence system close to Russia's border in NATO countries the Czech Republic and Poland, adding that any further enlargement of the alliance would be inappropriate.

"Why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our border? It's hardly connected to today's global threats. What is the threat? Terrorism and fighting it," Putin said.


Cold War?... and Bush will just view it as an opportunity to feed more cash to defense contractors. Impeachment is the only solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oil is not the only objective: Posted by: citizenjoe
» Resorting to name-calling Posted by: Rod from Canada
» I was tying to be silly. Posted by: citizenjoe
» Trapping a monkey Posted by: amacd
» It's a shame Posted by: WhatNow?
» Putin said that? Posted by: polyquat50
Pandora's Box
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 10, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it wasn't obvious to some previously that BushCo really screwed the pooch when he led the nation down this path, it should be now. Getting the 200k+ troops, civilians, contractors, hangers-on out of Iraq is only going to get more and more difficult and expensive in terns of lives, treasure and diplomatic price. I guess Bush is just going to let this wound fester until every last person in Iraq hates the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Iraqis already hate us. Posted by: citizenjoe
» An historic 'victory' Posted by: amacd
Jeffrey Blankfort:
Posted by: rwa on Feb 10, 2007 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion that the US was going to go in with Bush Jr. and the Neo-Cons and take over Iraqi oil, shows a total ignorance of how the industry functions, and the way oil is shipped. Oil needs peace in the region where it is produced. We have oil pipelines. I saw the oil pipeline that the PFLP broke back in 1970 in Jordan with a bulldozer. I saw a pool of oil in the desert there. You can't protect an oil line if people want to break that oil line. There's no question about it. And the people who think of it as a "war for oil," they don't answer the question of why was daddy Bush who is much closer to the oil companies and the Carlyle Group against it? And Carlyle Group dwarfs Halliburton.

Why was Frank Carlucci, of the Carlyle Group against the war, as well as Jim Baker, much closer to the oil companies than anybody in the administration, Brent Snowcroft, why were they against the war?

link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does Fisk Check Facts? Or is he just a propaganda tool?
Posted by: rwa on Feb 11, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
February 9, 2007

In a dispatch posted at 11:04pm Makkah time Friday night, Mafkarat al-Islam (Islammemo) reported that the Iraqi Resistance organization, the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution, had categorically denied claims that appeared in the western media that their organization had agreed to negotiate with the occupation forces, affirming that they were continuing on the course of jihad against the occupation.

Shaykh Abu Anmar az-Zawbi'i, one of the top commanders of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, told Mafkarat al-Islam that "the report has no truth in it and is a cheap lie that no reasonable person could believe."

The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported that Shaykh Abu Anmar said that the men in the 1920 Revolution Brigades were surprised at the false report about them...

link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Richard Kanegis
Posted by: RichardKanegis on Feb 12, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the second not first peace proposal

In October 2004 an Iraqi go between (unnamed in the media) arranged with commanders in the field in Fulluja, for the insurgents to accent nominal central government authority, and US troops pulled back. The locals cheered what they thought was the war’s end.
Then John Kerry complained about terrorists hiding in Fulluja, and George Bush demanded that al Sadr be turned over for trial. This was refused or ignored. Now the same Sunnis and Shiites are trying to kill or chase each other out of their turf.

Maybe there can be another joint Sunni-Shiite proposal. Maybe people could try positive thinking on Bush and remind him that he and Collin Powell were helpful go-betweens when, India and Pakistan were slipping toward war. Maybe at the next press conference a reporter could hypothetically ask Bush if he would react positively to another joint Sunni Shiite proposal.

Sadly yours
RichardKanegis@aol.com 215-563-2866
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3961#comment
www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3961

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ichard Kanegis Posted by: RichardKanegis
Black Man View
Posted by: jesse285 on Feb 13, 2007 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should we want to give in to this person, he should be hang along with other evil doinger!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]