A Read on Maliki's Amnesty Plan

The Associated Press reports that Iraqi PM al-Maliki has offered a 24 point reconciliation plan to his Parliament. In his speech to that body he said:

"To those who want to rebuild our country, we present an olive branch ... And to those who insist on killing and terrorism, we present a fist with the power of law to protect our country and people", also

"The launch of this national reconciliation initiative should not be read as a reward for the killers and criminals or acceptance of their actions... There can be no agreement with them unless they face the justice."

According to the AP Al-Maliki also said the general amnesty would exclude "those who committed crimes against the Iraqi people."

I think, by looking at statements on June 14th and 15th, and the statements made today, we can see who the amnesty will involve, and come to some early conclusions as to the impact in the U.S. Looking back to WaPo articles on the 14th and 15th we can glean the following Iraqi descriptions of amnesty recipients (italics indicates descriptions made by or attributed to Maliki):

• Those who had attacked only U.S. troops
• The resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis
  
• Those whose hands weren't stained with Iraqi blood
• Iraqi youth who believe the attacks as legitimate acts; resistance/defense of homeland
• Not those who committed crimes against the Iraqi people

These descriptions can be explained, and all but the first are compatible, provided some of the terms are defined.

Iraqis/Iraqi blood/Iraqi people:

First, notice that these terms are all from statements attributed to Maliki himself. Second, it is important in this exercise to note that the first description above "Amnesty to those who had attacked only US troops" was roundly denounced by Maliki, resulting in the resignation of the aid who make the statement.

What definition would then, contradict the first description but apply to all the other descriptions? I propose that when Maliki refers to "Iraqis/Iraqi blood/Iraqi people" he is including all Iraqis except those in the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); The Military of Iraq and The Police of Iraq.

Criminal(s):

As difficult as it is for Americans to accept, we have to consider that some of the enemy in Iraq were legitimate opposition forces. Those Iraqi military that fought us during the initial three weeks of the war were as legitimate as German and Japanese soldiers of WWII, and the Iraqis that only participated during that phase should be free from reprisal, as were Germans and Japanese who fought us. In fact I doubt the term amnesty would even apply since they did nothing considered illegal.

Now lets look at the enemy that our military has been facing since about the summer of 2003. The May 2006 Report to Congress: Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq describes the enemy in Iraq as a composite of three elements:

• Rejectionists. Sunni and Shi’a Rejectionists use violence or coercion in an attempt to rid Iraq of Coalition forces. This element includes former regime members who continue to reject the Coalition and the Iraqi government.


• Regime Loyalists. Saddam loyalists are no longer considered a significant threat to the MNF-I endstate and the Iraqi government. However, former regime members remain an important element involved in sustaining and enabling the violence in Iraq, using their former internal and external networks and military and intelligence expertise involving weapons and tactics. Saddamists are no longer relevant as a cohesive threat, having mostly splintered into Rejectionists or terrorist and foreign fighters.


• Terrorists and Foreign Fighters. Terrorists and foreign fighters, although far fewer in number than the Rejectionists or former regime loyalists, conduct most of the high profile, high-casualty attacks and kidnappings. Many foreign fighters continue to arrive in Iraq via Syria, a flow that began with Syrian government assistance before and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is currently the dominant terrorist group in Iraq. They continue efforts to spark a self-sustaining cycle of ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq, but have so far failed in their endeavors. AQI pursues four broad lines of operation: anti-MNF-I, antigovernment, anti-Shi’a, and external operations. Ansar al Sunna (AS) is another significant, mostly indigenous, terrorist group that shares some goals with AQI. Because of similar agendas, AQI and AS tend to cooperate on the tactical and operational levels. Most recently, there have been indications of cooperation between AQI and Rejectionists as well. It is estimated that 90% of suicide attacks are carried out by AQI.

Of the three groups, terrorists and foreign fighters pose the most serious and immediate threat. And I suspect the final Iraqi definition of criminal will be limited to this element.

The definition of criminal will be an Iraqi decision, but according to the WaPo articles linked above, they are making the decision in consultation with the USA, and so far there has been agreement.

So there you have it. In my opinion the amnesty will be for the rejectionists and saddam loyalists who have not killed or maimed Iraqi civilians; ISF casualties and Coalition casualties are fair game.

This amnesty will be backed by our military and the Bush administration, but not the Democrats in Congress. Last week, when it was reported that the Iraqis would give amnesty to those who had only attacked US troops, the Democrats in Congress saw an opening to attack Bush and introduced a resolution attacking the idea. And I suspect it will do so again if the amnesty is as I opined.

I hope though, that everybody will back the Iraqis and Bush on this. The Sunni Insurgents, as part of the deal, will have to formally surrender; give up their arms and pledge an end to acts of violence. It will bring a clear end to the conflict, and an earlier trip home and fewer casualties for our troops.

This process may be hard to swallow for some Americans, but it has worked successfully in past wars. It may be a capitulation to some values, but there are times when the end is worth the means; an example being the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which was done to save lives.

Update: According to the BBC the published plan presented by Maliki to the Assembly of Representatives on Sunday describes amnesty as follows:

Amnesty for detainees not involved in terrorist acts, war crimes or crimes against humanity, as long as they condemn violence and pledge to respect the law

The exclusion of those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity has been added. And also, why is the word "detainee" used? What would be the status of people who have been charged but not caught? Or those who have attacked the military or even civilians but not yet charged or caught. The outcome for thse people is not addressed anywhere in the plan and the logical conclusion is that they will be ignored; they will remain free provided they comply with the plan after it is signed.

My final definition of Maliki's amnesty is:

Amnesty will be for detained rejectionists and saddam loyalists who have not intentially killed or maimed Iraqi civilians. Attacks resulting in ISF and Coalition casualties are fair game provided war crimes or crimes against humanity were not committed. And those who are not already in prison will not be pursued, regardless of their past crimes.

Upset Looming in the Midwest

Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow is considered by the press and pundits to be a shoe-in for re-election to the US Senate; she had been leading all contenders by 13-25 %, depending on which Republican candidate she is matched against and which poll your looking at, but her lead is now 8.1% in the latest Zogby poll. And her lead will not last; the press/pundits are missing the following clues to what lies ahead:

• Union households in Michigan, which usually vote Democrat, will now vote for the Republican candidate for governor according to a recent Detroit News/WXYZ-TV poll.
• This turn is reminiscent of the Reagan Democrats, typified by the blue collar community of Macomb County, which is next-door to Oakland County, which has a wildly popular sheriff by the name of Michael Bouchard.
• Bouchard is currently in the Republican primary for U.S. senator and is leading in the polls despite a late decision in November 05 to run. His credentials include leadership positions in the Michgan Senate and now, as sheriff of Oakland County, a leading role in homeland security and the war on terror. He has a history of being tough on criminals.
  
• If he wins the GOP primary as expected, he will start getting more attention and will be seen as being allied with the interests of the Reagan Democrats. He will team with the popular Republican candidate for governor, Dick DeVos and together they will be able to conduct a strong campaign.
  
• Bouchard will be running against a vulnerable Democrat (Stabenow) in the areas of homeland security, taxes, spending, family values, and immigration.