« Shadow boxing in East Asia | Main | Insurgent "siege" of Baghdad »
February 21, 2005
"Back-channels" with Iraqi insurgents
In what appears to be a very hopeful revelation, tentative back-channel negotiations have taken place between Iraqi insurgents and the U.S. military, according to Michael Ware, Time magazine's exceptionally well-connected man in Baghdad. The Iraqi insurgency has long been an elusive foe, not only tactically but also strategically. It seems to be comprised of a wide variety of individuals and groups, ranging from former Baathists to wanna-be Islamic theocrats to anti-Western terrorists, only united (in agenda if rarely in practice) by nothing more than opposition to the U.S. occupation. (The best breakdown of the insurgency I've seen is here.) So the prospect of "negotiations" with the insurgents, however tentative or back-channel they may be, is tantalizing for any number of reasons, not only for the peace prospects they may represent but also for the compositional glimpse they may offer into the insurgency itself. As Ware notes, these negotiations may also be useful in driving a wedge between the hardcore jihadi insurgents and the more generally nationalistic ones -- a wedge the recent, (relatively) successful elections may have helped to pry open.
Most striking, and perhaps most dubious, is what Ware reports as the insurgent negotiators' demands. He notes that they would support the notion of a secular democracy in Iraq, an assertion which is not only vague almost to the point of irrelevance but which also would be clearly and presumably off-putting to substantial segments of the insurgency. Ware also suggests that some insurgents would be open to the prospect of continued U.S. military basing in Iraq, a la post-war Germany and Japan. This flatly contradicts what has heretofore been the only known certainty about the "insurgency" and its objectives. It also very conveniently matches what I believe to be the Bush administration's most fundamental root objective in invading Iraq in 2003 (more on that later).
Regardless of intent or near-term prospects, however, one can only interpret negotiations of any kind as a good thing, especially if they come in place of bloodshed. But as this recent English-language insurgent video makes abundently clear, the sophistication and ability of the anti-U.S. forces in Iraq -- if only in terms of media savvy and propaganda construction, if nothing else -- is formidable. While the "Islamic Jihad Army" is predictably not one of the insurgent groups represented in the recent negotiations, it appears that at least some of its comrades-in-arms are. And as the recent elections demonstrated, the steps toward success in Iraq (however defined) need not be perfect in order to be promising.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 12:57 AM to Middle East
