Wednesday June 15th 2005

According to the Associated Press ( http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050614/ap_on_r
e_mi_ea/iraq_talking_to_the_enemy ) this morning, "U.S. and Iraqi officials are considering difficult-to-swallow ideas—including amnesties for their enemies—as they look for ways to end the country’s rampant insurgency and isolate extremists wanting to start a civil war."

As per usual, it does not take much for the corporate media to get things wrong—all they need is the first sentence.

The resistance is not an "insurgency." My dictionary defines "insurgency" thus: "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict." Resistance against occupation in Iraq began almost immediately, when there was no "constituted government" (because it was bombed to rubble, along with thousands of Iraqi civilians), and the current "government" is not legitimate because it was imposed by the United States and its army of occupation. Thus no "insurgency" exists—but most definitely resistance.

Indeed, there are "extremists wanting to start a civil war" in Iraq—and these extremists work for the Pentagon. It is plain stupid to think the Iraqi people want civil war—and the resistance does not want civil war either: they simply want the Americans to leave. So called civil war would be entirely counterproductive to their objectives.

The Associated Press continues:

Negotiations have just begun between U.S. and Iraqi officials on drafting an amnesty policy, which would reach out to Iraqi militants fighting U.S. forces, say officials in both the Iraqi and American governments… But foreign extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, responsible for Iraq’s bloodiest attacks, would not be offered any amnesty, the Iraqi and U.S. authorities told The Associated Press in recent days.

Of course, we have no definitive proof Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is responsible for "Iraq’s bloodiest attacks," let alone proof the guy is even alive or who the United States and its stooges in Iraq say he is. However, we can say the United States is responsible for most of "Iraq’s bloodiest attacks," including the flattening of Fallujah and massive brutality and wanton slaughter responsible for more than 100,000 dead people. As Seymour Hersh pointed out, Rumsfeld and crew have planned such covert ops for some time now.

The amnesty proposal is seen as a key weapon to split the insurgency between Iraqi and non-Iraqi lines and further alienate foreign fighters like al-Zarqawi.

Even the Pentagon admits there are precious few "foreign fighters" in the country, so this is nonsense, mere propaganda. Moreover, it needs to be explained how the United States plans to "alienate" al-Zarqawi, an all-encompassing name used for a Pentagon black op. Somebody here is blowing hot air out of a certain orifice.

Iraq’s minister for national security said Sunday an amnesty policy is being drawn up, but he said insurgent groups first must do more to convince authorities they are serious about making peace.

Do more? Like what? Turn in their weapons over to the stooge government? Stop resisting occupation? Not likely. The Iraqi resistance has one immutable objective: get rid of the U.S. occupation and its appointed and stage-managed government.

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies who says he has been involved in informal talks, said U.S. and Iraqi authorities need to split the insurgency and persuade as many Sunni elements as possible to join the peaceful political process.

Cordesman is not much of an "Iraq expert" if he believes he can "split the insurgency," i.e., disassemble the resistance by offering Sunnis token participation in the neocon-neolib sell-out (and transnational fire sale) of their country. Iraqis are not stupid and this "amnesty" will go absolutely nowhere because most Iraqis realize what the United States has in mind: stealing Iraqi natural resources, subverting and eliminating independent nationalist movements, and imposing on the people of Iraq the same "structured adjustment programs" foisted on the third world by loan sharks and corporate carpet-baggers.

"This does not mean blanket amnesty," he said. It could, however, mean negotiations that lead to "pardoning or ignoring the actions of movements and opposition elements that supported the insurgency when this was done out of nationalism, fear," Cordesman said.

Nationalism, certainly, but the resistance is also growing and becoming increasingly violent due to the fact the United States and its proxies in Iraq are killing and detaining a record number of people. Iraqis are sick and tired of trigger-happy yahoo soldiers who disrespectfully call them "hadjis," kick the doors of their homes at three in the morning, detain their men folk, kill their relatives at checkpoints, and refuse to rebuild the infrastructure the United States has systematically destroyed since Dubya’s daddy was CEO of America and chief warmonger and serial murderer.

Some Sunni leaders have said they have been meeting with associates of anti-U.S. militant groups to try to persuade them to lay down their arms.

Good luck. These "anti-U.S. militant groups" have one inflexible demand—the United States out of Iraq. If this does not happen—if there is no timeline for withdrawal—they will not enter into a deal, even with other Sunnis, who will likely be viewed as collaborators. Considering the betrayal and duplicity of U.S. foreign policy, the resistance would have to be stupid to believe anything the Pentagon says or promises. No doubt more than a few Iraqis understand the true objectives of the Bushcons: the break up of their country along ethnic and tribal lines, the imposition of neoliberal economic policies, and of course eliminating any threat to Israel.

Exactly who any amnesty would apply to remains unclear, but the U.S. and Iraqi governments say they have begun drawing up such a policy to curb the stream of suicide bombings, assassinations and kidnappings.

If they want to "curb the stream of suicide bombings, assassinations and kidnappings," they may want to talk to senior Pentagon officials in the Green Zone. As is becoming increasingly apparent, many of these violent attacks are the work of Pentagon black ops and covert nastiness designed to turn Iraqi against Iraqi and foment a civil war in the country.

The issue is politically charged with the potential to enrage many Iraqis and Americans.

Americans have no reason to be "enraged." In fact, they should be asking the Iraqis to forgive them for supporting the criminal decimation of their country, a country that never posed a threat to the United States. Americans should be petitioning their government, demanding the U.S. get out of Iraq. I would say they should also be demanding the impeachment of Bush and the criminal prosecution of his all-war-all-the-time camarilla, but I then I may as well wish for a pony delivered on Christmas morning.

The diplomatic efforts are being driven by a growing realization that military force alone can’t end the insurgency.

No, you think? It should have been realized from the beginning—determined nationalist movements, resisting the brutal occupation of their country be foreign troops, almost always win or at minimum force a political solution to their advantage.

[Salih al-Mutlak, leader of a so-called Sunni Arab umbrella group] said Iraqi insurgents have demands of their own: They want guarantees that attacks against Sunni cities will stop; that thousands of detainees will be released from U.S.-run prisons; and—most importantly—that the U.S.-led occupation will end.

So, there you have it—the most important demand on the part of the resistance is that "the U.S.-led occupation will end," something the Bushcons will never do, not unless forced to under duress (or public outrage over dead U.S. soldiers—most Americans are not overtly concerned about dead Iraqis).

In other words, the "amnesty" idea is a public relations scam floated to make it appear the U.S. and its stooges are sincere about coming to terms with the resistance—and of course it will eventually be determined, with much corporate media fanfare, that the resistance cannot be negotiated with and thus we must "stay the course" and continue killing them (and a whole lot of other Iraqis—or "hadjis," as "our troops" call them). Eventually the Iraqi resistance will force the United States out of Iraq. But not until after a destructive and artificially induced "civil war" designed to accomplish the evisceration of Iraq and realize the wholesale theft of its natural resources.