Any such scheme ought to wait until we have left.

Beyond that, very few Islamists have ever survived open combat with US forces.

The obvious exception is Fallujah. So, I must take this pitch to be for them almost exclusively.

How does a universal pardon for these criminals advance the national interest.

Who came up with this brainstorm?

Posted by: blert at July 3, 2004 6:08 PM

I say we let Saddam go and point out all the dumb Iraq’s that betrayed him. The Iraq people deserve nothing less.
But 1st we would invite all the Christians to come to the US. What a backward people. They shall get what they deserve, two fold I hope.

Dt. 32:31 “There rock is not like our Rock.” For there vine is the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah; Their grapes are grapes of gall, there clusters are bitter. Their wine is the poison of serpents, and the cruel venom of cobras.

Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of there calamity is at hand, and the things to come hasten upon them

Posted by: Bar at July 3, 2004 8:12 PM

Why this move? The guys killing Americans are Muslim. Americans, for the most part, are non-Muslim, thank God. That ideological bond/identity is the primary thing that motivates Muslims. It doesn't matter what the U.S. has done for Iraq; it doesn't matter that without the U.S., Allawi would never have been able to set his foot in Iraq. What matters is that Allawi is Muslim; the terrorists are Muslims; and the soldiers the terrorists have killed are not Muslim. That's the bottom line.

Posted by: caribsea at July 3, 2004 10:39 PM

America's true friend in Iraq are the Kurds. It now seems that the constitutional guarantees the Kurds thought they had regarding their liberties will soon be trashed by the Arabs. They wanted (the Kurds) a federated republic so that the freedoms they had after 1991 would continue without interference from Islamic or secular fascists.

America and the Brits have betrayed Kurdistan. According to the Kurd Media secession and civil war are coming in the near future.

BTW, in the latest poll, 91% of Kurds still think that the American invasion was a great thing. Why does America and the West constantly give in to Islamic Arabs and ignore the much more secular and liberty loving Kurds?

Absaraka

Posted by: Ben at July 4, 2004 2:00 AM

Where have I read the prediction that this would happen? hmm. right here. Hugh has repeated this theme, and I have read columnist in other areans making the same prediction.

They will slip back because they are Muslim and can't stomach the fact that America has "saved them from themselves." No leg up for them. No, that can not stand. Islam must prevail regardless of how low they sink.

It's a shame that we've spent so much blood and treasure on the unworthy.

Posted by: epg at July 4, 2004 4:03 AM

Ben: The Kurds aren't necessarily more liberty-loving and secular. They did a lot of the dirty work for the Ottoman Turkish government in the Armenian atrocities; and in atrocities against the Assyrians after the British took over in Iraq after WW One. Jews and Christians in Kurdish areas have been emigrating right and left since the 1930's; the bulk of Kurdish Jews disappearing into Israel shortly after 1948, while the Assyrian Christians tended to head for Chicago and California. Some of the Kurdish blogs are now scathing in their criticism of the USA because we did not press for an independent Kurdistan. While I think the US owes the Kurds some strong guarantees and needs to continue to watch the situation, we've nonetheless got a volatile ally there, with a fairly ugly history.

Further, don't sell anyone in Iraq short. In southern (i.e., heavily Shi'ite) districts that were quiet enough to hold elections after the invasion, clerically-oriented parties lost. Sistani himself told the Lebanese Hezbollah that the coalition forces behaved respectfully in an-Najaf, and that it was Muqtada al-Sadr's people who damaged the shrines. One of the most pro-American Iraqi blogs is run by three Sunni Arab brothers. Indeed, the Kurds seem generally resistant to radical Islamicist groups--if only because such groups seem to be in league with the Ba'athists.

Posted by: Kepha1 at July 4, 2004 8:13 AM

Someone notify BAR - - the guy who puts Deut. 32:31 in his comments quite often - to change the spelling of 'there' to 'their'.
thanx, 2x

Posted by: kleo at July 4, 2004 1:11 PM

Thanks Kleo,
Bad spellers unight!

Posted by: Bar at July 4, 2004 1:30 PM

perhaps the twisted logic of the amnesty offer is to lasso nationalistic feelings among erstwhile enemies in order to unite them to resist the aggressive anti-iraqi campaigns currently fomented by syria and iran. this same allawi is going public now with concerns about syrian and iranian behaviour toward iraq.

Posted by: ted at July 4, 2004 3:54 PM

As well as Saddam Hussein himself and el-Qaeda and its transnational proxies, who else desires the new Iraq to fail? Adjacent, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia don’t wish to see any US-aligned democracy there, nor do Egypt, Algeria, Sudan or the “Palestinians”, inter alia.

Neighbouring Jordan volunteered to send peacekeepers several days ago, but Bagdad’s Interim Government declined. It expressed a preference for peacekeepers from Arab countries that aren’t right next door. Bahrain then stepped up, but despite c650 miles of Persian Gulf waters between it and Iraq, it’s also deemed as being a bit too nearby. No further offers have been voiced since, though, together with Jordan and Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia and Morocco DO want Iraq to succeed and could dispatch peacekeepers there - once there’s a peace to keep.

Much of Syria’s economy depends on money from Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the latter paying for Damascus’ hosting, training and equipping of Jihadis transiting into Iraq and the former for its facilitation of the terrorism of Hezbollah, in Syria’s satellite, Lebanon. (Most of the rest of Syria’s income derives from its sale of bio-chem weapons, missiles and their technologies.)

Iran seeks to dominate Iraq via infiltrating agents and gunmen into it and through subsidizing virtually every Shi’a entity there, on a multi-level basis (Shi’ites constitute approximately 60% of the population of Iraq). Tehran supports an extensive range of healthcare, social welfare, educational and religious institutions, political parties and factions, media organizations, professional associations, trade unions, cultural and sports groupings, etc, in Iraq, in addition to backing numerous militias, criminal syndicates, vigilante squads and tribal and local gangs.

The new Iraq, in such a malign and murderous environment, faces severe challenges in the coming months - but upon its future hinges that of the region, and beyond. It’s crash would mean a major reversal for the USA, a decisive triumph for the Islamo-fascists, making the seizure of their primary, strategic objectives - Saudi Arabia, for its riches, and Pakistan, for its nukes - a great deal easier and quicker for them, bringing mastery in their “Holy War” closer.

Indubitably, as a result, the decadent Europeans will be even faster to appease the rabid Arabs and Moslems then than they are today, substantially hastening the dhimmification of their continent (and probably Russia to boot), immensely weakening the West, significantly isolating the US. Simultaneously, America would be subject to unremitting ATTRITION on many fronts.

Contrary to the Islamic dogmas of fatalism, this struggle could all be forestalled and channelled to turn out otherwise - if Western timing’s good, if adequate and apt resources are allotted and if the West grasps the stern, moral courage required to prevail in this conflict. With Coalition victory in Iraq an absolute NECESSITY, everything ought to be done, urgently, to destroy Islamo-fascism there. In the attainment, humanely, everybody could possibly be spared a century of appalling mayhem by generations of Jihadis, always emboldened by any advances they gain.

Plausibly, what’s needed is a dramatic, unambiguous Demonstration - a message “on the ground” which unmistakably says: the West won’t be chasing militant Arabs and Moslems into dank caves and rank cellars. Instead, their centres - albeit, sadly, usually planted in the middle of civilian areas - will be the scene of the sanitizing white heat of American thermo-nuclear strikes: unless the citizenry hand over the terrorists and their arms, in a set quantity of hours.

Here’s what’s conveyed by the US in this radical approach to pre-emption: no longer will Islamo-fascist lies be accepted; the gloves are off now; no more Mr Niceguy; Total War; surrender or die - resistance is futile; all that line. But the key communication is: there’s lots more where that ICBM came from - and (at least at this stage) the Islamo-fascist enemies DO NOT possess nukes with which to retaliate. They’re (temporarily) vulnerable. It’s a vital window of opportunity - to minimize, if not fully abort, looming years and decades of mass lethalities, suffering and devastation, in a percussive, historic act of Allied will.

With Faluja, in Iraq’s “Sunni Triangle”, in the news again as brewing up once more, two initial targets hove into sight - Faluja dooms itself to be one, if it erupts into serious insurrection afresh. On top - in no way tangential to affairs in Iraq and the Middle East all round - menacingly, there are the burgeoning atomic weapons production-industries in Iran, most of them dug in under a batch of sprawling and distant military bases and reservations, not in cities or towns. These are a supremely a threatening series of sites, excellent assets of which to DEPRIVE the enemy - and their remoteness makes them highly inviting to be hit, hard.

Posted by: HGII at July 4, 2004 7:07 PM

We need to look past the election cycle and crush Iran ASAP.

The longer the delay the more likely nukes will be used.

The mullahs are raising a suicide army of nuke backpackers. They are already attacking US forces in Iraq. They are going for hundreds of nukes as fast as they can. They are talking of a first strike total take down against America. ( MEMRI )

The is a fight that can't be avoided. Iran is on an absolute crusade against the infidels.

To the mullahs, muslim dead shoot straight to paradise. So there's no concern about retaliation.

Posted by: blert at July 4, 2004 9:44 PM

to blert: regarding iran, i've heard a couple of reports in the last 24 hours that we have a couple of battle carrier groups headed into the area, and perhaps this is the set-up for a blockade.

Posted by: ted at July 5, 2004 12:43 PM