Iraqi leaders want a timetable for US withdrawal
Group condemns terrorism, but also acknowledges 'legitimate right to resistance.'
Putting aside numerous differences at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, Iraqi leaders called for a
timetable to be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The
Associated Press reports that the gathering of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders (under the auspices of the Arab League) also said that Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right to resistance."
The communique – finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday – condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
The
Los Angeles Times reports that while the document called for a withdrawal timetable, it
didn't give any specific dates. Most Shiite and Kurdish members of the government have echoed the US position that setting a definite date would "encourage the terrorists." But recently President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said that foreign troops could start leaving in 2006 or 2007.
The final statement also called for the release of all "innocent detainees who have not been sentenced by a court" and an investigation into claims of torture by Iraq's Shiite-led police forces. And it denounced attempts by insurgents to label some Iraqis as infidels, saying that contradicts the teachings of Islam.
While the meeting ended on a positive note, at times it was quite contentious. At one point the Shiite and Kurdish delegates abruptly left a meeting after they had been accused of "selling out" to the Americans. The New Zealand news website
Stuff.co.nz, reports that the issue of
how to describe the insurgency was among the most hotly debated at the conference.
Delegates agreed to condemn attacks on Iraqi civilians, government institutions and oil installations, and called for the release of all detainees held without trial. However, [Harith al-Dhari, head of Iraq's Muslim Clerics' Association] took a strong anti-American and anti-government line, arguing that the insurgency was a legitimate response to US occupation. He accused Iraqi forces of adopting US practices such as torture and mass arrests.
The most contentious part of the agreement was its treatment of "resistance" – seen by some Iraqis as a just struggle against invaders, by others as futile fanaticism. The compromise formula said: "Although resistance is a legitimate right of all peoples, terrorism however does not represent legitimate resistance, so we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, murder and kidnapping."
Voice of America reports that Iraq's government was strongly opposed to "
recognizing this right of resistance," but that Sunni leaders had insisted on it,"arguing that at least parts of the Iraqi insurgency is engaged in what they see as legitimate resistance against foreign occupation."
The Financial Times reports that while it is "virtually unprecedented" for a gathering of this type to happen, it is "unclear" what effect, if any, the conference will have
on the situation in Iraq, since insurgents and elements of the former regime of Saddam Hussein were not part of the talks.
Official representatives of the insurgency and of the former ruling Ba'ath party, which is thought to make up much of its leadership, were excluded from the Cairo conference – an omission that has rankled with some Sunnis, who say that little progress can be made unless the government engages directly with its armed opponents.
Some Iraqi officials also question the importance of negotiations with Sunni Arab groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars, which they say may be influential among the insurgents but which has yet to demonstrate any ability to stop attacks on the ground.
Controversy over US use of white phosphorus continues
Meanwhile, the controversy over the US admission that it did use white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon against insurgents in Fallujah, but not against the civilian population, continues to stir debate.
The New York Times reported yesterday that one of the biggest problems has been that the US has been
slow to respond to charges made in an Italian TV documentary which "was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts."
But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response – making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city – that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up. The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern. Part of the problem has been that the US military's own materials have undermined its position. At first the military said white phosphorus had been used "very sparingly" in Fallujah, for "illumination purposes," and were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." But that was proven to be incorrect when journalists and bloggers discovered
firsthand accounts by US soldiers who had been in Fallujah who said very clearly that WP had been used a weapon against insurgents.
Another key issue has been the debate over whether or not white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Many US media outlets have taken the US military position and described it as an "incendiary munition." But that description may now be called into question by another military document.
In a
declassifed 1995 intelligence document from the
Department of Defense, Pentagon officials described Saddam Hussein's use of white phosphorus against Kurdish rebels. In the document, entitled "Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical," white phosphorus is clearly labeled as a "chemical weapon" when used by Hussein.
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ ...
THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY.
William Arkin, who reports on national security and homeland defense for
The Washington Post, writes that he's not going to get into the argument over whether the use of white phosphorus is illegal. He does feel, however, that's its use is an indication of a "
losing strategy ... In a deliberate war, in choreographed fighting, in a well managed and well conceived affair, precision rules."
But he also has words of caution for the "the critics of white phosphorus and the US military."
When have you ever been happy when the United States has only employed precision, when it has been scrupulously "legal" in the conduct of its military operations? To suggest that white phosphorus is illegal or illegitimate suggests that you are willing to accept that some use of military force and some weapons are perfectly legal. It is to say that there are laws of war, that fighting and the military enterprise can be honorable and just. I never hear this from certain quarters, and the inability to give credit where credit is due undermines any efforts to encourage the US military – and the rest of the world – to systematize and strengthen constraints on weapons and methods of warfare that no longer accord with the public's conscience.
Also...
•
Setting the Record Straight: The New York Times Editorial on Pre-War Intelligence (
WhiteHouse.gov)
•
Feds ramp up spying on journalists, other Americans (
Capitol Hill Blue)
•
India unwilling to vote against Iran: PM (
Times of India)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed