WAR: U.S. Held Secret Meetings with Insurgents in Iraq

According to the U.K. newspaper, The Sunday Times, United States officials held direct talks with commanders from various insurgent groups, including the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, Mohamed's Army, and the Islamic Army in Iraq. The U.S. officials, at least one of whom allegedly claimed to represent the Pentagon, wished to discuss ways "of stopping the bloodshed," "hear demands and grievances," and ascertain information on insurgent forces.



I think opening a dialogue is always a good thing, at least if all the parties involved are there with honest intentions.

I do wonder though, if the insurgents are terrorists, and the story is true, what does the U.S. need to "hear demands and grievances" from them for? Does the U.S. intend to negotiate? I think you see where I'm going with this.

Perhaps the U.S. is finally accepting the discordance between the realities on the ground and the rosy picture painted for domestic consumption. The Bush administration finds itself on the defensive this term, and results need to be seen soon in Iraq by an increasingly disillusioned citizenry.

Still, it may be too early to draw any conclusions on this story. I will be watching it closely, though.

-koji K.



[edit on 26-6-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 27-6-2005 by John bull 1]

I think this is a great idea WAY past time. They should have done this a long time ago. Let's hope that it goes somewhere.

The US has been negotiating with varying forces in Iraq since before the 2003 invasion. It's no surprise that we would want to bring some of the hardline Iraqi groups into the political process.
The foriegn terrorists from Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are the ones responsible for most of the deaths and it's unlikely that the US would negotiate with them. Zarqawi and his Al Qeada of Iraq are a good example of a group the US would round up rather than open dialogue.

Thought I'd post a followup of some links describing the three groups mentioned in the article:

The Islamic Army in Iraq

Mohamed's Army

Ansar Al-Sunnah Army

These appear to be mostly powerful, primarily domestic Iraqi groups. Many members were former Baathists or soldiers in Saddam's army. It seems like the de-Baathification of Iraq's administrative bodies and the disbandment of the old military contributed powerfully to the rise of these groups, although I base this more on a logical assumption than anything in the articles directly.

Greater inclusion of these demographics, and of course the Sunni majority, from the outset would have hindered the rise of these particular militant groups. Could the willingness to engage in talks with these militant factions be a sign that attempts at inclusion in the legitimate political field have not produced satisfactory results?

Are these groups, in fact, legitimate parties? Are they terrorist factions, as their actions indicate? Is the truth somewhere in between? I'm assuming that these groups represent more Iraqi's than the U.S. would like to admit, but perhaps less than they themselves claim. I hope that any dialogue proves fruitful, although I am pessimistic at least for the short term future.

It seems that in pursuing the sort of global terrorist networks al-Qaeda typifies, the U.S. has found itself in the middle of a terrorist situation that more closely resmbles the domestic, politically-based framework found in places like North Ireland, Israel/Palestine, or Lebanon. How does the U.S. extricate itself from such a quagmire? Can it be done without leaving Iraq in chaos?

-koji K.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by koji_K]

How long has London been negotiating with Sinn Fein and the I.R.A. It's been like 30 years or something like that. If you look at it from the insurgents point of view, they do not possess the resources to engage the coalition(excuse me while I clear my throat)......in a typical soldier on soldier war so they resort to guerilla tactics, and you know what it works. The I.R.A. nearly brought Britain to its knees when they set that bomb off in London's financial district, the insurgents of Iraq are doing a pretty good job of destroying a super power. Not in terms of deaths but in world public opinion. Antipathy for the US is at an all time high and that is the goal of any terrorist regime.

I thought it was against US National (and perhaps NATO/UN) Policy, to never, under any circumstances, negotiate with terrorists? Or do insurgents not count as terrorists? More hypocrisy!

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
How long has London been negotiating with Sinn Fein and the I.R.A. It's been like 30 years or something like that. If you look at it from the insurgents point of view, they do not possess the resources to engage the coalition(excuse me while I clear my throat)......in a typical soldier on soldier war so they resort to guerilla tactics, and you know what it works. The I.R.A. nearly brought Britain to its knees when they set that bomb off in London's financial district, the insurgents of Iraq are doing a pretty good job of destroying a super power. Not in terms of deaths but in world public opinion. Antipathy for the US is at an all time high and that is the goal of any terrorist regime.

I disagree on that assertion, deeznutz. Did the I.R.A. have foreign militants doing the dirty works for the I.R.A. for over the last 30 years? No, I don't think so. The insurgents have been repeatedly targeting Iraqi police and citizens because they're weak points and they know every time they hit the US troops, the US troops hit them back hard with restraint applications.

Why should world public opinion matter on Iraq but never matter on more serious troubles in other parts of the world? The only reason it's matter to the world is because of carnage and killings involved. It's like people slowing down on a highway and checking out the scene of a major wreck, with blood, debris all over and people standing about while cops telling you to "move along, nothing more to see here, folks. Move along."

Although i agree that the US should open a dialogue with the bandits,isnt it at odds with their media position:"the US does not talk to terrorists"?
I think this shows signs of desperation on the part of the US military,as i reckon that they would not speak to an enemy that they believe is in its "last throes",as Dick Cheney put it.
Its obvious that the US are badly overstretched in Iraq,and need to change tactics.I hope that these negotiations will bring peace to both sides,but i do worry that the enemy will see this as a weakness to be exploited.
This is my first post here on ATS.Hope its relavent.

Freedom by the gun is tough concept for me.

Maby the "Natianalists" Iraq "Insurgent" groups are getting sick of Al-Quieda and crew, along with every other outside group attacking THEIR country.

If i was considered a "terrorist" and some outside terrorist group started bombing my country and trying to convert and recruit them to THEIR ways i would not look on it as in my best intrests.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I mean if Al-Quieda started bombing Ireland i don't think the IRA would look down on it as "in their best intrests" and i reckon would be against it anyways (its a personal thing if a "forign" force starts attacking YOUR country and starts converting YOUR people).

It makes your group look like the insignificant, second rate one.

I don't think they wish to get rid of the USA and Saddam only to be replaced by something a lot worse and less tollorant (yes, they might want to get rid of the USA, but not if the next "USA" is Al-Quieda (Al-Quieda won't and don't have to play by the "laws and rules" at all, only the ones THEY decide, if they take over)

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Crash]

How about people start refering to these fighters by the more apt term: guerillas

Definition: Guerilla

A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Were the Viet Cong terrorists? Were the Mudjahedin terrorists?

The U.S army should be urged to talk to guerilla forces and if they have I commend the U.S generals on it.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Why should world public opinion matter on Iraq but never matter on more serious troubles in other parts of the world? The only reason it's matter to the world is because of carnage and killings involved. It's like people slowing down on a highway and checking out the scene of a major wreck, with blood, debris all over and people standing about while cops telling you to "move along, nothing more to see here, folks. Move along."

There's plenty of "blood" and "debris" elsewhere in the world if that's what people are really concerned about. The reason troubles elsewhere in the world get less attention is because they are internal, and because the corporate media doesn't bother to focus on those spots. The reason Iraq matters so much to the rest of the world is because a sovereign country was invaded based on, as Galloway put it, a pack of lies.

To use your car wreck analogy, the reason the crowds are gathering around this specific one is not because some people died in an accident, it's because the driver of the family SUV deliberately smashed his vehicle into someone else's house.

I think talking with the true Iraqi insurgents/Saddam loyalists and throwing a bone to them to get them involved in the political process rather than siding with the al-Qaeda terrorists is a good thing.

as posted by koji_K
Perhaps the U.S. is finally accepting the discordance between the realities on the ground and the rosy picture painted for domestic consumption. The Bush administration finds itself on the defensive this term, and results need to be seen soon in Iraq by an increasingly disillusioned citizenry.

Really, koji_K?
All those fancy words, like "disillusioned."
Who here is really "disillusioned," koji_K?
I do not think nor believe those Iraqis that you speak of are so "disillusioned" as you assert.
Seen this?

"The terrorist groups have revealed their purpose, which is creating sectarian strife, and stand in the way of the political process and building the new Iraq," Hakim said, a day after two waves of car bombs killed more than 30 people in mainly Shi'ite neighbourhoods of the capital.

"What is new in these attacks is that they have started targeting the Shi'ites openly and clearly," he said.

"These terrorists must be terminated."

Iraq Shi'ite leader wants insurgents wiped out

Does what is said above, in bold, indicate that those Iraqi people, especially those known disgruntled Shi'ites, as you so assert, are that "disillusioned"?






seekerof

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by koji_K
Perhaps the U.S. is finally accepting the discordance between the realities on the ground and the rosy picture painted for domestic consumption. The Bush administration finds itself on the defensive this term, and results need to be seen soon in Iraq by an increasingly disillusioned citizenry.

Really, koji_K?
All those fancy words, like "disillusioned."
Who here is really "disillusioned," koji_K?
I do not think nor believe those Iraqis that you speak of are so "disillusioned" as you assert.
Seen this?

"The terrorist groups have revealed their purpose, which is creating sectarian strife, and stand in the way of the political process and building the new Iraq," Hakim said, a day after two waves of car bombs killed more than 30 people in mainly Shi'ite neighbourhoods of the capital.

"What is new in these attacks is that they have started targeting the Shi'ites openly and clearly," he said.

"These terrorists must be terminated."

Iraq Shi'ite leader wants insurgents wiped out

Does what is said above, in bold, indicate that those Iraqi people, especially those known disgruntled Shi'ites, as you so assert, are that "disillusioned"?


seekerof

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Seekerof]

Sorry, I didn't realize "disillusioned" was a "fancy word." But you misunderstand, I probably wasn't clear in that sentence.

I was referring to the *American* citizenry. Opinion polls are showing that the majority of Americans now believe, for the first time, that the Iraq war was a mistake. Regardless of whether it was or wasn't, the wars popularity is decreasing- in the U.S.. This is the point I was trying to make.

But as for the article you cited, it raises exactly the questions I had before. A Shi'ite leader blasts the insurgents. But he's a Shi'ite, and the insurgent groups he targets are mostly Sunni, who are in the majority. His one view may represent many Iraqis, but by no means all. How does one deal with such a situation?

-koji K.

Originally posted by subz
How about people start refering to these fighters by the more apt term: guerillas

Definition: Guerilla

A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Were the Viet Cong terrorists? Were the Mudjahedin terrorists?

The U.S army should be urged to talk to guerilla forces and if they have I commend the U.S generals on it.

Excellent point. The Viet Cong and the Mujahidin were labeled terrorists by the Americans and Russians, respectively, and their tactics did include terrorism. But one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The war in Iraq was entered into with a very unhelpful set of black & white distinctions, which I think we will slowly see becoming more accurate (at least, if any progress is to be made).

In Vietnam, Communism was seen as the primary motivation for Viet Cong/NVA actions. Regardless of whether or not this was true, it was nationalism, not communism, which provided them with the cohesion they had. I think the U.S. has, at least publically, overlooked the forces of nationalism in Iraq, in its attempt to portray the war as one of "peaceful, law abiding Iraqis" vs. "foreign terrorists." While there are plenty of the latter, the bulk of "terrorist" or guerilla activity in Iraq seems to be coming from nationalist sectarian groups.

-koji K.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by koji_K]

Rumsfeld confirmed the story:

The fresh violence came as Rumsfeld confirmed a report by London newspaper The Sunday Times that Pentagon officials have had contacts with Iraqi insurgents.

"Sure, my goodness, yeah. The first thing you want to do is split people off and get some people to be supportive. The same thing's going on in
Afghanistan," he told US television.

"The meetings... go on all the time," Rumsfeld said, adding: "I think the attention to this is overblown."

The paper had reported that a US team had held face-to-face talks with insurgent leaders, including representatives of the Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sunna group.

But Ansar, which has claimed a string of suicide bombings, including one against the mess hall of a US base in Mosul last year that killed 22 people, denied it and vowed to press on with holy war.

"We categorically deny that any negotiation took place between the Ansar al-Sunna Army and any crusader or apostate" wrote al-Sunna leader Abu Abdallah al-Hassan in an Internet statement, whose authenticity could not be verified.

Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has said he was ready to talk to armed groups willing to renounce violence while taking a hard line against those implicated in the killing of civilians.

Critics say that it was US opposition that undermined a similar offer made by his interim predecessor Iyad Allawi.

Source: AFP

-koji K.

Perhaps the negotiations are due to the fact that after all the so call "insurgents" and "terrorist" are not other that the same people we were to liberate in Iraq, Iraqis themselves.

Interesting that this is going on.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
There's plenty of "blood" and "debris" elsewhere in the world if that's what people are really concerned about. The reason troubles elsewhere in the world get less attention is because they are internal, and because the corporate media doesn't bother to focus on those spots.

That may be so, given the lack of paramount attention the MSM have on other trouble-spots around the world that doesn't involved the United States.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The reason Iraq matters so much to the rest of the world is because a sovereign country was invaded based on, as Galloway put it, a pack of lies.

You (or Galloway or everybody who opposed the war from the get-go) say "pack of lies", I say the war is based on pack of circumstantial facts that you (Galloway and everyone who opposed the US war) are clearly ignoring.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
To use your car wreck analogy, the reason the crowds are gathering around this specific one is not because some people died in an accident, it's because the driver of the family SUV deliberately smashed his vehicle into someone else's house.

I'm curious, why are you singling out a family SUV and its driver? I don't like SUVs but to use the family SUV as an example for your argument on my "wreck in the highway" analogy suggests your odd attempt to draw away the focus on the wreck to the focus of who drove or caused the accident based on a very specific type of vehicle.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
You (or Galloway or everybody who opposed the war from the get-go) say "pack of lies", I say the war is based on pack of circumstantial facts that you (Galloway and everyone who opposed the US war) are clearly ignoring.

Please explain what a "circumstantial fact" is, and then, if appropriate, list it/them.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
I'm curious, why are you singling out a family SUV and its driver? I don't like SUVs but to use the family SUV as an example for your argument on my "wreck in the highway" analogy suggests your odd attempt to draw away the focus on the wreck to the focus of who drove or caused the accident based on a very specific type of vehicle.

No, the focus was on "deliberately" and "someone else's". The SUV bit was just spicing.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Please explain what a "circumstantial fact" is, and then, if appropriate, list it/them.

Fact given in full details. These facts below are in summary of circumstantial facts that most people don't bother to read, learn or conveniently ignored based on their biased stance against the US efforts to remove Saddam from power.

Fact: Saddam have active & inactive WMD programs (active: chemical/biological; inactive: nuclear) going back over 20 years.
Fact: Saddam used WMD upon peoples in the past.
Fact: Saddam supported external terrorism extensively and funded families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Fact: Saddam employed people to commit acts of terror, suppression and outright murder against Iraqis and others who opposed him or his regime.
Fact: Saddam lied to, stalled, deceived, bribed people engaged in international efforts to contain him.
Fact: Saddam instructed his military to shoot down American and British aircrafts patrolling in the No-Fly Zones in Iraq in defiance of the UN resolutions imposed on his regime.
Fact: Saddam have repeatedly undermined and threatened peace throughout the Middle East, especially with Israel and the Palestinians.
Fact: Saddam cannot be trusted or be counted on for his words in regarding to his WMD program.
Fact: Saddam is a very evil man, given his history in the last 35 years.

These are not pack of lies. These are a pack of facts that you and your anti-US kind conveniently ignored or looked the other way when the US removed Saddam from power.

[edit on 6/26/2005 by the_oleneo]