Should we bite the bullet to win the war?
Victory in Iraq, David Ignatius reminds us, means the violence ending, the Iraqi nation coming together, and its fledgling democracy having a chance to succeed. And that may happen sooner than many think.
You'd never know it from the coverage of the war by the MSM, but the Iraqi government has received feelers from the leaders of the insurgents (the Sunnis- the ones who count- not Al Quaeda distraction) about throwing in the towel. They want to make a deal.
I'll say that again: the people who killed our soldiers and Marines want to make a deal. The deal would mean the sacrifice of those heroic men and women being redeemed, and the cause they died for succeeding.
I'll say it yet again but in a different way, with a different emphasis: the enemy in this "quagmire," this "mess," this "unwinnable" war is suing for peace.
But it may mean amnesty for the very people who killed our fallen heroes.
As soon as the story broke, the universal American reaction- including mine- was a scornful rejection of the very notion. But the fact is that it isn't our decision to make. If the other side offers an end to a fighting on the Iraqi government's terms on the condition that it let bygones be bygones, the Iraqi government will decide whether or not to accept the deal. We'll have to like it or lump it.
For our part, we'll probably feel betrayed. But should we? What do you think? If the opportunity arises for the Iraqi government to strike a deal which would end the insurgency and achieve what we're fighting for on the condition of amnesty for the insurgents who lay down their arms and swear allegience to the government- essentially the deal we struck to end our own Civil War- should they take it? And if they do, what should our attitude be?
HT: Real Clear Politics
You'd never know it from the coverage of the war by the MSM, but the Iraqi government has received feelers from the leaders of the insurgents (the Sunnis- the ones who count- not Al Quaeda distraction) about throwing in the towel. They want to make a deal.
I'll say that again: the people who killed our soldiers and Marines want to make a deal. The deal would mean the sacrifice of those heroic men and women being redeemed, and the cause they died for succeeding.
I'll say it yet again but in a different way, with a different emphasis: the enemy in this "quagmire," this "mess," this "unwinnable" war is suing for peace.
But it may mean amnesty for the very people who killed our fallen heroes.
As soon as the story broke, the universal American reaction- including mine- was a scornful rejection of the very notion. But the fact is that it isn't our decision to make. If the other side offers an end to a fighting on the Iraqi government's terms on the condition that it let bygones be bygones, the Iraqi government will decide whether or not to accept the deal. We'll have to like it or lump it.
For our part, we'll probably feel betrayed. But should we? What do you think? If the opportunity arises for the Iraqi government to strike a deal which would end the insurgency and achieve what we're fighting for on the condition of amnesty for the insurgents who lay down their arms and swear allegience to the government- essentially the deal we struck to end our own Civil War- should they take it? And if they do, what should our attitude be?
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
But again, it's really their call, especially since Iraqis themselves have been the main victims of such attacks.