Exclusive: Direct Talks: U.S. Officials and Iraqi Insurgents

[ECH1969]

American officials in Iraq are in face-to-face talks with high-level Iraqi Sunni insurgents, NEWSWEEK has learned. Americans are sitting down with "senior members of the leadership" of the Iraqi insurgency, according to Americans and Iraqis with knowledge of the talks (who did not want to be identified when discussing a sensitive and ongoing matter). The talks are taking place at U.S. military bases in Anbar province, as well as in Jordan and Syria.

The groups include Baathist cells and religious Islamic factions, as well as former Special Republican Guards and intelligence agents, according to a U.S. official with knowledge of the talks. Iraq's insurgent groups are reaching back. "We want things from the U.S. side, stopping misconduct by U.S. forces, preventing Iranian intervention," said one prominent insurgent leader from a group called the Army of the Mujahedin.

Negotiations are risky for everyone—not least because tensions between Al Qaeda and Iraq's so-called patriotic resistance is higher than ever. Two weeks ago, assassins killed Sheik Nassir Qarim al-Fahdawi, a prominent Anbar sheik described by other Sunnis as a chief negotiator for the insurgency. "He was killed for talking to the Americans," says Zedan al-Awad, another leading Anbar sheik.

Al Qaeda, meanwhile, continues to gain territory in the Sunni heartland, according to al-Awad: "Let me tell you: Zarqawi is in total control of Anbar. The Americans control nothing." Many, on both sides, are hoping that talks could change that.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11079548/site/newsweek/

[saltpoint]

1. Gee. I hope those officials aren't giving any comfort to the enemy.

(which is how they smear Democrats back home.)

And by the way -- where's all that "Bring it on" talk Dubya was barking about early on?

I thought it was the Bush administration's position to REPEATEDLY lecture the world about not negotiating with "terrorists."

[Erika]

3. self delete

He has to have someone for him and Condi to mouth off with.

[Erika]

4. Bush is turning the world into his definition of terrorists

He has to have someone for him and Condi to mouth off with.

[saltpoint]

6. Hi, Erika. An interesting point you raise. Yes -- Condi is really

a master at that game.

It really irks me to see these two working together. They are a disgrace to the country's reputation.

[Erika]

7. Hi! W has put Venezuela, Cuba, Palestine, maybe Mexico

and how many other countries on the "no-talk" list? What's his policy going to be? How very childish of him.

W in no way should be president.

[bananas]

31. next we'll hear Bush sold them weapons in exchange for hostages

iran/contra all over again

[saltpoint]

43. You paint a frightening picture, but you may be on to something.

With all the lies that Bush has told, there is always some trail of economic wrong-doing. Witness jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, etc.

Good point.

[DELUSIONAL]

2. bush is a genius fuck up

Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq --

If there is a wrong decision -- his gut (or the god speaking to his ear piece) will make the wrong decision.

[tocqueville]

5. a similar pattern evolves now in Palestine or will soon

what was better George ? Arafat of the Hamas ?

[Adelante]

8. We should pray it works

For the sake of the Iraqi people.

[Erika]

10. Nationals have to fight their own civil wars

and determine their own future. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the better. W was a fool for ever going in there.

The Iraqi people will choose which nations and sects they wish to align with.

In the meantime W and his corporatists buddies have made profits they never could have dreamed possible.

So let's bring our troops home.

[Adelante]

11. Peace talks are a bad idea?

Is that what you're saying?

[Erika]

13. Who are we to be a member in Peace talks?

That's what I am saying. What sect of Iraqis do we control?

[Adelante]

15. This is how wars end

By negotiation. By diplomacy. I'm for all sides talking to each other. God knows something's got to give. We control shit, but this is a major step.

[wtmusic]

20. This is not a war--it's an invasion

It's like saying Hitler was at war with Poland.

Talking is pointless until we resolve the fundamental issue at hand, and that is American occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

[ECH1969]

22. Alot of powers have invaded Iraq

The article makes that clear. And, I can tell you that the two invading powers these insurgents are afraid of are far worse the US in everyway for Iraq.

[wtmusic]

27. Call it 6 or half a dozen

Exactly the same. The US is in Iraq for its own interests, just like Iran, just like al Qaeda. We are there to control Iraqi resources, establish a puppet government to oppress any true self-determination, and let the infrastructure rot away while kids die of diarrhea and malnutrition. The DOD will release video of a new school opening to the public every four or five months, and Americans will rejoice at our "spreading democracy".

I'm not really sure how an occupation by Iran would be worse.

[Adelante]

37. I would say it's an invasion that became a war

Ask the Iaqi people if they think this hell isn't war.

That said, and though I am glad for any movement through negotiating rather than killing, my hope would be that this process be carried out through an international body that includes neighboring countries, including Iran, the EU and the UN, pulling all parties, which, like it or not, includes the main protagonist, US -- to effect a cease fire and a political solution in Iraq. I'm not convinced that the Shia people of Iraq, as opposed to the most vocal Shiite leadership, are as entirely anti-secular or completely pro-Iran as they are made out to be. There can be some fluidity there if secular Shiite groups can be brought to the table. All sides need some breathing space and only a concerted international diplomatic project can do this. I do NOT trust the Bush administration to pull this off, not for one minute.

But there are several fundamental issues, not just the one you cite. Most critical is preventing a wider regional war, which is almost certain to follow the current, so far, contained war, as Sunni states line up against Iran; Turkey blocks any Kurdish independence moves; and Israel goes ahead to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities. The only possibility is a Sunni share in Iraqi oil revenue and political power and either a secular or moderate Islamist government for Iraq. Anything short of that triggers a situation far more dangerous and far more bloody than anything we've seen.

As far as al Qaeda goes, the more fighting al Qaeda, the better. It's what should have been happening all along, instead of sidetracking off Afghanistan and creating the holy mess we have in Iraq. It's in nobody's interest, not Saudi Arabia, not Jordan, not Iran, not Turkey, not Kuwait, not Syria, and certainly not Iraq -- for al Qaeda to dominate anywhere and they all know it by now, even those most slow on the uptake.

[wtmusic]

40. "Israel goes ahead to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities"?

That will accomplish nothing but lend Hamas legitimacy and feed al Qaeda's fire.

Prediction: Iraq will become part of Iran. Sooner or later, it will happen--Iraq has too many boots on the ground and Iraq is too fragmented (it's already happening).

The best we can hope for is to work through international diplomatic channels work toward a comprehensive inspection program for Iran, and the only way we'll have any bargaining power is if we withdraw from Iraq.

The pre-emptive military approach, as most of us knew three years ago, was doomed to failure.

[Adelante]

41. I agree on a couple of your points

That it would accomplish nothing positive for Israel, but present it as something that would likely happen unless there is a political/diplomatic solution. I also agree the pre-emptive military approach was doomed to failure and has subsequently failed. I am less sure than you are that Iraq will inescapably become part of Iran. I don't think Iraqi nationalism is dead and gone even among Shiites. International diplomacy on a comprehensive inspection program for Iran, hell yes. Where I disagree most is our relative bargaining power vis a vis whether we are in there or not. It's a pretty complex issue.

I'll get back later with more on my thoughts there, but have to run out now and don't want to give you a half-assed answer. I think this is a valuable discussion we're having in this thread.

[ECH1969]

18. Iran has carved a large part of Iraq as has al-Qaeda

Iraq has become Lebanon with alot of rival powers fighting for control of a country. If we can use the nationalistic insurgency to work with us to clear out jihadist from Iraq and at the same time somewhat check Iran's power then Peace Talks would be worth it.

If they fail then Iraq is going to be carved up like a roast between foreign powers. America has its designs on Iraq as well, but after we take back Congress and the WH we can change that.

[wtmusic]

21. What incentive do they have to work with us?

None. Many more are likely working with their fellow Arab Iranians to "clear out" Americans from Iraq.

[ECH1969]

25. What the heck are you talking about

The Sunnis know that support for the war in the US is in the pits and that the US is already leaving before the 2006 elections.

The Iranians if they win will shut them out from all of Iraqs oil as Harkim has already threatened to do.

The US has said the Sunnis should get 20 percent of Iraqis oil revinue.

The Sunnis know the US will be mostly gone in a couple years. But, the Iranians wouldn't give a crap about a thousand dead a year from an insugency as long as they are getting the oil.

[wtmusic]

29. a lot of hypotheticals

The US is leaving Iraq before the 2006 elections? News to me. And maybe Hakim made a threat like that at one time; Hakim no longer holds a position in the Iranian government. As far as I know President Ahmadinejad has never made such a statement.

"The US has said the Sunnis should get 20 percent of Iraq's oil revenue?" That's a good one. Who is getting Iraq's oil revenue now?

[ECH1969]

30. The Constitution does not stipulate who gets the oil revinue

The Kurds and the UIA want to keep it all and the US is trying to negotiate to give the Sunnis a part of it based on the size of their population.

And, Harkim is head of the UIA he isn't an Iranian politician.

[Erika]

26. nationalistic insurgency?

When did that term come about? It was only days ago that W, Condi, Rummy were talking about the insurgents being the terrorists. Do you spin with them?

[wtmusic]

16. Yes

It only prolongs the inevitable. The negotiators will continue to get killed, because the majority of Iraqis want the US out right now without negotiations.

From a moral standpoint: who gave us the right to negotiate with Iraqis over their own country? We have no right to be there in the first place. Getting out is the only good idea.

"American withdrawal from Iraq is not the only condition which will bring about peace, but it is a necessary one".

- George Galloway

[ECH1969]

12. The Shia have allied with Iran

So amazingly it seems the Sunnis now want to ally with us to check Iranian power and fight off al-Qaeda who controls much of western Iraq.

My guess is 8 months from now our only allies in Iraq will be the Kurds and the Sunni "insurgents" that we have been fighting for 3 years. And, the US will be on the verge of war with Iran and the pro-Iranian Shia like Sadr.

[Erika]

14. Reagan allied with Saddam against the Iranians

Should it all just start over again with new players? I remember the picture of Cheney with his arm around Saddam.

I'm getting a touch sick of my tax dollars paid for such oil antics while we, here, are turning into a third world country ourselves because the $ WE pay are going into a military farce.

[HuffleClaw]

9. erm, what happened to 'NEVER negotiating with TERRORISTS' ?

they've called the insurgents terrorists since they invaded. what's changed?

[Erika]

17. Nothing. The insurgents are now the reasonable faction

War, W style.

[Strelnikov_]

24. Just After The Announcement About The Chocolate Ration, We Were Told

that our forces are in cooperation negotiation with the Freedom Fighters in Iraq to enlist their aid in the fight against IranAsia.

On Edit:

Wonder how this makes the families of those soldiers killed feel? What was it, we have to complete the mission so their sacrifice would not be in vain?

Seems that Iran is now fully in play, everything else is secondary.

[bluestateguy]

19. "Appeasement"

One could only imagine the screams of blood curdling rage that we would hear from the the neo-con commentariat if a Democratic president authorized this.

[Erika]

23. W's negotiating with terrorists?

He's sacrificing our national security by this act.

(How can anyone call themselves a bushbot at this point)

This is so funny if it weren't for the troops W put on the line.

[pinniped]

28. Do they wear 'insurgent' nametags?

.

[Clarkie1]

32. self-delete..duplicate.

[ckramer]

33. So "never negotiate with terrorists" is a lie?

[maryallen]

34. So, Act 3 of the Drama unfolds ...

Written and choreographed by your friendly neighborhood Republicans -- with a little help from their "Spooks."

[Clarkie1]

35. Wes Clark suggested negotiations months ago...

"But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life."

Wes Clark, 12/6/05

http://securingamerica.com/oped/nyt/2005-12-06

[Adelante]

38. Well, years, but who's counting?

;)

[Straight Shooter]

36. If John Kerry were president, Repubs would be screaming "Appeasement!"

I can't read any of the words of this article, because the phrase "2006 election" keeps drifting across my screen.

[Adelante]

39. Petition

Sign the Global Petition for a Cease-Fire and Peace Talks in Iraq

This is How it Ends. Sign up Below.


We the undersigned call upon the Bush administration and Iraqi insurgents to declare a cease-fire in Iraq, and begin peace negotiations.

The war in Iraq cannot be won by either side. 80% of Iraqis want US troops to leave. Most Iraqis do not support the insurgency either.

American forces must not stay in Iraq, but neither can they suddenly abandon Iraqis to a civil war the US helped to create.

President Bush’s plan to train more Iraqi soldiers is not a plan for victory or for peace, but a plan to get fewer Americans and more Iraqis to do the killing and the dying.

There is another way. Peace talks, mediated by the Arab League and the United Nations, and involving Iraqi civil society, could bring a peace with honor to Iraq.

Negotiating with Iraqis does not mean negotiating with terrorists. The vast majority of the insurgents are not terrorists or even Islamists, but are resisting a foreign invasion. The war made Iraq safe for Al Qaeda. Only peace and an alliance of all Iraqi factions can deny them sanctuary.

The brutality of the war, and the suffering of the Iraqi people, increases every day. We call upon President Bush and Iraqi insurgent leaders to stop the killing, immediately declare a cease-fire, and negotiate a peace agreement that includes the withdrawal of American forces, the disbanding of insurgents, and the creation of a UN war crimes tribunal for Iraq. This is the right way, and the only way, to end the Iraq war.

Sign here: http://www.iraqpeacetalks.org/index.html

A project of Res Publica: http://www.therespublica.org/index.htm

[applegrove]

42. Wow! I wonder if the talks started before of after Dems insisted that

they get step by step progress on goings on in Iraq? That was this fall.