I'm going to remain skeptical for now, but these do look like positive signs that could lead to major drawdowns of our forces in Iraq, which is my primary concern. Iraq might end up going any which way, and the initial signs of gangsterism, censorship and illiberalism (in terms of rights) in all areas of Iraq - the Kurdish north, the Shiite south, and the Sunni middle - are disturbing, to say the least, but it would be no small feat to get our friends and families out of harm's way while the Iraqis fight it out (whether figuratively or literally). Any hope we might have had to really influence a free and democratic course has already run its course, with some minor successes (maybe), but the fact that free assembly is considered by the Kurdish elite (supposed to be the most liberal) to be about 10-20 years out is probably a sign of things to come.

Looking through the Oil theory lens at the root of all things to do with Iraq, including internal politics and strife, can explain the actions of all parties involved. Yes there are the religious and tribal conflicts; however who controls the oil endgame has to be the maximum motivator at this time.

Nouri al-Maliki states:

“damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will (not) be pardoned."

Infrastructure means oil facilities and pipelines. Do not forget the two things protected in Iraq during the initial push were the oil fields, pipelines, and Oil Ministry in Bagdad. Everything else was left to its own devices.

There has to be a diving up of the oil equally into the 3 main groups before some sort of calm can come.

The U.S. has to broker the Oil situation. With Cheney running the show, if the oil does not pump into his interests, then there will be no settlement of the oil question, only continued blood letting and roadside bombs.

"Takes a bucket of blood for a barrel of oil"

Steven Bruton

EOM

to defend amnesty for insurgents

RAW STORY
Published: Thursday June 15, 2006

Five Republican Senators today took to the chamber floor invoking Nelson Mandela, the Confederacy, and even the Japenese to defend an Iraqi government plan to grant amnesty for insurgents who have attacked United States troops, or civilians, RAW STORY has learned.

Iraqi leadership has proposed amnesty for insurgents as part of the foundation of a new government.

“If they bore arms against our people," said Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, "What's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What’s the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we’ve forgiven?”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) likened the granting of amnesty to former insurgents to efforts that earned Nelson Mandela a Nobel prize. "Forgiveness," he said, "has been a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa."

Senator Saxby Chambliss argued that forgiveness had already been at work in Iraq, asking: “Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?"

Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) each took to the floor to argue that there should be no argument--that debate over whether or not to condemn the actions of the new government were merely distractions from real debate.

“…Might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they’ve taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty?” asked McConnell.

link

(What's that "snapping" sound? Tens of thousands of cases of whiplash - ES)

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 15, 2006; 4:48 PM

BAGHDAD, June 15 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office Thursday accepted the resignation of an aide who had told a reporter that Maliki was considering a limited amnesty that would likely include guerrillas who had attacked U.S. troops, the aide said.

The aide, Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, stood by his account, reported in Thursday's issue of The Washington Post. Kadhimi said Maliki himself had indicated the same position less directly in public.

"The prime minister himself has said that he is ready to give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis," Kadhimi said Thursday.

Maliki's office issued a statement earlier Thursday saying: "Mr. Adnan Kadhimi doesn't represent the Iraqi government in this issue, and Mr. Kadhimi is not an adviser or spokesman for the prime minister."

Kadhimi, who also worked as an aide to the previous Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim Jafari, said he had submitted his resignation earlier in the week. He was informed Thursday that his resignation had been accepted, he said.

Another Maliki aide, asked if the amnesty being considered by the government was likely to apply to those who had attacked U.S. forces, said Maliki had been ''clear, saying those whose hands weren't stained with Iraqi blood" may be eligible for any amnesty.

That aide spoke on condition of anonymity, saying the new prime minister had not authorized anyone to speak for him. Another aide refused comment, on the same grounds.

(...)

link

(flippancy edited :D - ES)

It's not just the aide's comments that matter, but al-Maliki's precision in describing the amnesty as something for insurgents other than those who killed Iraqis. What other murderous insurgents are there? The thinking of the PM is all to clear - helping rid Iraq of an occupying force will be considered noble enough to warrant an amnesty, but blowing up Iraqis will not be.

The Republicans can talk all they want about the traditions of amnesty in the U.S. civil war, but this is a three way war with the U.S. military acting as just another militia, and one the Iraqis want to get rid of. So much for gratitude for 2500 American deaths.

I'm not sure this ingratitude - or perhaps it should be called insolent rejection - is going to sit well with Republican ideologues. It will be interesting to see if it plays at all on talk radio, the home of jingoism.