U.S. Talks With Iraqi Insurgents Confirmed

[280PLUS]

Washington Post
June 27, 2005
Pg. 1
U.S. Talks With Iraqi Insurgents Confirmed
Goal Is Sunnis' Political Inclusion, Rumsfeld Says
By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer
The U.S. military in Iraq has been holding face-to-face meetings with some Iraqi leaders of the insurgency there, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the U.S. commander in charge of Iraq confirmed yesterday.

The talks are part of the military's revised campaign to drive a wedge between the Iraqi and foreign insurgents, according to U.S. commanders. Pentagon officials have acknowledged the new strategy but have not, until now, spoken openly about efforts to make contact with some Iraqi insurgent leaders.

Asked to respond to a report that U.S. military representatives had meetings with several Sunni Iraqi insurgents twice in June, Rumsfeld told Fox News that "there have probably been many more than that" and described the contacts as an effort to "split people off and get some people to be supportive" of the political process in Iraq.

Other parts of the U.S. government, including the State Department and CIA, have also been holding secret meetings with Iraqi insurgent factions in an effort to stop the violence and coax them into the political process, according to U.S. government officials and others who have participated in the efforts…...

 

[Standing Wolf]

Well, heck, yes! That's how we beat Germany and Japan, wasn't it?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

No, we bombed the crap out of the Japanese and let the Russian eat Germany.

 

[R.H. Lee]

That's the Republican party I know an love. When you don't have to cojones to act, talk 'em to death.

I will never, never vote Republican again.

 

[AZRickD]

It's how the North defeated the South. The Union negotiated favorable terms to Lee who advised his soldiers not to engage in a bloody, years-long guerilla campaign.

Of course, few in the South predicted the Reconstruction.

Rick

 

[Sean Smith]

The U.S. military in Iraq has been holding face-to-face meetings with some Iraqi leaders of the insurgency there, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the U.S. commander in charge of Iraq confirmed yesterday.

Can I get a "duh"? Why is this news? As far as counter-insurgency goes, this is like me filling up the gas tank on my car... utterly routine. It probably boils down to, "everybody give up their weapons, quit fighting, and sell out all your foreign supporters to us, and in return we don't kill you and burn your town down."

Of course, few in the South predicted the Reconstruction.

This is off topic, but Lincoln didn't predict Reconstruction as it actually happened, and he was the dang Republican president! The ideas he floated before getting his head blown off were much milder than what the radical Republicans implemented after his death, and Andrew Johnson didn't have the personal prestige or political skills to counter them that Lincoln had. Not many Southerners would have guessed that their best hopes for a (from their point of view, anyway) more bearable reconstruction died with Lincoln.

 

[wally]

The talks with N. Vietnam seemed to have gone well.

--wally.

 

[Sean Smith]

The ability to tell apples from oranges doesn't appear to be going well, either.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Those of you that think that meeting with certain factions of the insurgency is an unforgivable travesty don't understand the nature of warfare.

Meeting with the enemy is a positively outstanding opportunity to collect intelligence on the enemy. It gives you the opportunity to ask "So, you lead which unit?, And who is your commander, sir?, What is your area of operation, so that we know who we are dealing with".

It also allows you to give the enemy whatever information you so choose, and to use that discretion to affect the enemy's actions.

That's the Republican party I know an love. When you don't have to cojones to act, talk 'em to death.

I will never, never vote Republican again.

And what do you suggest we do? And what are your credentials that make you qualified to comment authoratively on strategic anti-insurgency issues?

Didn't a Democrat President and a Democrat-controlled house simply talka-talka-talka about WMD and "must get rid of Hussien" and yadda-yadda for years and years, while not having enough fortitude to act beyond firing a missile or two?

Dem, Rep, pick your poison. Same thing in a different package with a different motive.

 

[R.H. Lee]

And what do you suggest we do? And what are your credentials that make you qualified to comment authoratively on strategic anti-insurgency issues?

Uhhhh, I'm an American citizen, one who's voted Republican for the last 30 years and I want my money back. So-called 'anti-insurgency' (whatever the hell that means) issues should be eliminating them from the face of the earth, not trying to reason/talk/negotiate with them. If GWB and Rumsfeld had the courage of their professed convictions, they would do exactly that rather than use my fellow Americans who happen to be in uniform as cannon fodder.

Keep drinking the kool-aid, I'm done with it.

 

[El Rojo]

So-called 'anti-insurgency' (whatever the hell that means) issues should be eliminating them from the face of the earth, not trying to reason/talk/negotiate with them.

How do you eliminate the hundreds of millions of Muslims out there? I mean if we want to be effective, you can't just kill the insurgents, you have to kill their source too. So lets just ax all so many hundreds of millions of them right? Better get the women and children too. Or you can kill them and talk to them too. Let them know that 72 virgins aren't going to last long in eternity. By my quick estimation 72 should only last about about two months. Sorry, thread drift.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Hundreds of millions of Muslims are not insurgents. Only 'insurgents' are insurgents. George Bush started this war and had better figure out a way to end it. He's rapidly losing support from the American people and will sooner or later be forced to withdraw in defeat. Yesterday, his SecDef indicated '6,8,10,12 years' more in Iraq. Truth is, they don't have a clue, but think they have unlimited resources. They don't. Either win it and leave, or admit defeat.

Some 'leader'.

 

[lunaslide]

Keep drinking the kool-aid, I'm done with it.

Sounds like you just started drinking it. For a more refreshing drink, look here:

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/06/good-news-from-iraq-part-30.html

Arthur Chrenkoff regularly posts updates of news in Iraq that never gets reported in the mainstream media.

Just because the opposition keep saying that the strategy in Iraq is failing, doesn't mean it's true. My advice, find better news sources.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

My advice, find better news sources.

Because we all know that blogs are the highest level of news reporting

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I think the real issue here is that this is a violation of our "do not negotiate with terrorist". So, now we are treating as partisans? Well if so, then we better start treating captured like POWs instead of "enemy combatants".

I am no longer amazed by the hypocrisy.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Just because the opposition keep saying that the strategy in Iraq is failing, doesn't mean it's true.

The only thing that matters is what the American people think. If the 'strategy' in Iraq is succeeding, but we don't know/understand that, it is yet another of the administration's long list of shortcomings.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

So-called 'anti-insurgency' (whatever the hell that means) issues should be eliminating them from the face of the earth

"Anti-insurgency" means against the insurgency. As far as eliminating them, how should we go about it, and have you briefed the President yet?

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think I know the best way to go about it, even as a 5-year veteran of the USMC, who served in the intelligence community on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, studying these people and thier resistance efforts. I understand that I don't know how to go about it, and I don't think you or anybody on this board does. I hope our administration does, but I have my doubts.

I also do not relentlessly sling criticism regarding our defense-related decisions without attempting to be constructive and comment regarding a better course of action.

NOTE: Unless otherwise specified, I am not angry

 

[stangboy555]

I think what some people, which includes the media fail to grasp is that there is a difference between Insurgents and Al Qeida. The insurgents are the Sunni and other Iraqis who just want us to get out of their country (Thank you for getting rid of the Tyrant, now get the hell out). Al Qeida are the people who just want to kill us (The ones who killed 3,000 Americans) and our soldiers anywhere they can.

The US is meeting with the Insurgents in an attempt to curb the flow of foreign Al Qeida based terrorists into the country. I'm all for it, at least someone high up in the chain can tell the difference between an Insurgent and an Al Qeida maniac.