Skip to main content





YESTERDAY, THE DIARY FOUR CAME HOME told the personal stories of four soldiers killed together on a scorching October day. But in focusing on the personal, it ignored the tactical questions. Why were the four out alone on a weapons sweep? How badly were they outnumbered? Where was their backup?

Not so long ago the reported deaths seemed mostly to be roadside bombs, hidden and unavoidable. Or the result of 'skirmishes' where reports of American wounded or dead also included insurgent casualties. But look for such reports today and you look in vain.

True, tactics have changed: troops are increasingly being slain by highly trained snipers. And where once the term "I.E.D." referred to bombs, they now show up in reports where troops are "attacked by" I.E.D.'s. (read: rocket-propelled grenades).

But beside the switch in tactics, indications are that the ever-escalating troop deaths are the result of a totally new dynamic: it's an open secret in Iraq that the United States has given the green light to insurgents to hunt down and kill U.S. soldiers, marines, and airmen.



BUSH'S PLAN TO CUT AND RUN

Beginning in early September planned leaks told of James Baker's efforts towards an early 'exit strategy'. Those planned leaks built in momentum until they became such common knowledge that Baker's report will have been read, discussed and practically implemented before it is even published.

But in the last week there have been a very disturbing new series of planned leaks, directly related to the Baker plan, that have received remarkably little attention: Bush is openly offering amnesty to those who kill our troops.

From today's London Times:

AMERICAN forces are negotiating an amnesty with Sunni insurgents in Iraq to try to defuse the nascent civil war and pave the way for disarmament of Shia militias, The Times has learnt.

The tactic marks a dramatic reversal of policy by the US military, which blocked attempts to pardon insurgents with American blood on their hands after handing over sovereignty to a secular Iraqi Government in June 2004.

The U-turn comes amid the bloodiest fighting for two years and growing domestic opposition to the war as Americans prepare to vote in crucial midterm elections.

Even as President Bush convened emergency talks with his generals and national security advisers to review strategy in Iraq, commanders on the ground were negotiating a peace deal. Observers expect leaders of the Sunni insurgency to join a peace conference early next month.

"There's been a change in the position of the Americans," Jabr Hadeeb Jabr, an independent Shia politician and member of the Council for Reconciliation government agency, said. "Before, they refused to give any amnesty to the people killing Americans because there was some dispute about the risk of rewarding their killers."

Another Iraqi MP, Izzat Shabander, a member of the secular Iraqiya bloc, said: "This amnesty is coming because the American military are always pressuring the Iraqi Government to give a general amnesty to all fighters, even those who killed Iraqis."

The proposed amnesty, which one Sunni politician said had been negotiated between the US and insurgents without involving the Government, came as a senior State Department official admitted that US policy in Iraq had been at times "stupid" and "arrogant"...

Mr Jabr said it was possible that two of the main insurgent groups -- the Islamic Army and the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades -- could participate at a national reconciliation conference next month.  


And from a little-noticed article published last Wednesday:

State Department: Expanded amnesty should include insurgents who kill soldiers

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States reiterated its opposition to an amnesty in Iraq only for insurgents who had killed US soldiers, as Baghdad studies a national reconciliation program.

Tom Casey, a US State Department spokesman, told reporters that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has said that "some form of amnesty is potentially part of this national reconciliation process."

"We've been supportive of prime minister Maliki's efforts to build on national reconciliation," Casey said.

"We've also made clear, and you've heard us say this before, that as that process moves forward there shouldn't be any distinction made between those people who are responsible for attacks on US or coalition forces and those who've made attacks on Iraqis," he said.


So amnesty for those who kill our troops is now an open secret in Iraq, and the casualty toll for just this month steadily climbs to the century mark.


BUT IT GETS WORSE...

In Iraq the levers of power lie in a government that is at once both separate from, and yet part of, the insurgency itself. Officially, it is non-sectarian and an ally of the United States. But internally, it is rife straight through with those who act as pipelines to the various groups and militias seeking to expel the United States from their country.

So now in addition to the questions posed earlier about the four slain soldiers -- why were they alone, and where was their backup -- a new one must be asked: who knew the four would be there, and vulnerable to attack?

And if there are those from within the government who actively coordinate attacks on vulnerable troops, will they get amnesty too?

Sure looks like it.


AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE SITTING DUCKS, WHY NOT TIE ONE HAND BEHIND THEIR BACKS...

Insurgency continues to challenge U.S. troops in Anbar province

CAMP HABBANIYAH, Iraq - It was 9 a.m. and the start of another day of U.S. Lt. Col. Todd Desgrosseilliers' hands-on approach to counterinsurgency.

Most go well, at least by the perilous standards for Marines operating in Anbar province, the heart of Iraq's Sunni Muslim insurgency. Wednesday, however, would not.

By the end of the day, one Marine would lie badly injured from a sniper's bullet and another would be startled from a close call that struck the goggles perched atop his helmet.

Attention has been focused in recent weeks on U.S. patrols in Baghdad... but fighting hasn't slowed in Anbar, where most U.S. casualties in the war have come, and commanders here have acknowledged they don't have enough troops to beat the insurgents with sheer force.

So Desgrosseilliers, the lean, soft-spoken commander of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, from Camp Lejeune, N.C., is hoping to persuade the enemy to quit.

"I want them to stop fighting," he said. "We fight their strategy, we don't fight them."

That makes it crucial to avoid hurting or killing innocent civilians, and the men in Desgrosseilliers' battalion are counseled constantly not to return fire unless they're certain of their target, no matter how bad the incoming fire.

"It takes a lot of individual courage on the part of these Marines," Desgrosseilliers said. "But if we do that, if we show the locals that we are willing to put ourselves at risk for their security, they will respect us"...

Desgrosseilliers' personal detachment of 15 Marines, known as the battalion jump team, began its day Wednesday with a briefing from its fast-talking platoon commander, Lt. Jon Mueller, 29, of Denver. Then the Marines strapped body armor over their fire-resistant jumpsuits, pulled on their Kevlar helmets and flame-resistant gloves and climbed into their armored Humvees.

The mission was typical: Drive west from Camp Habbaniyah toward Ramadi, checking in with several of the 15 small outposts where Marines are scattered along a stretch of road between Fallujah and Ramadi.

At the first stop, in the town of Khaladiya, the Iraqi captain in charge took Desgrosseilliers behind the outpost and showed him bullet holes in the walls and impact craters in several bulletproof windows...

Next stop: a bridge where the Marine outpost is attacked nearly every day...

On the way to the third stop, a burly Marine who was traveling with the jump team but wasn't a member of it reminded a reporter to keep moving when outside the Humvee. The patrol was in an area where a sniper had been active, he said.

Two minutes later, when the patrol stopped so Desgrosseilliers could check in with a team of Marines with tanks, the burly Marine stepped out of his Humvee and walked about 15 yards toward the tanks. The flat snap of a shot rang out from about 150 yards away in the direction of a mosque, houses and shops.

The bullet hit just under the left side of the Marine's jaw and passed through his mouth, knocking out some teeth and exiting through his right cheek. He fell to the pavement and a pool of blood began spreading around his head.

The shooting continued.

Cpl. Mario Huerta, 22, of Dallas, was standing outside his Humvee when he heard the first shot and looked back. A bullet whirred just above him, then another smacked into the goggles on his Kevlar helmet, rocking his head and denting the goggles but not hurting him.

"Son of a bitch," said the turret gunner in Desgrosseilliers' truck, ducking and peering through the bulletproof glass.

Desgrosseilliers turned when he heard the initial shot, saw that the burly Marine was down and sprinted nearly 100 yards, ignoring the bullets zipping past his head...

He rolled the wounded man onto his back, then heard shots zipping past his head.

Joined by Navy corpsman George Grant, 25, of Brooklyn, Desgrosseilliers ordered the Humvees drawn into a circle to block the shots. Then he and Grant ran a breathing tube up the wounded man's nose so he wouldn't drown in his own blood.

The closest field hospital was about 4 miles back...

Later a doctor came out and told Navy corpsman George Grant it looked as if the Marine would live, that he'd been stabilized and would be flown to a larger hospital...

Earlier in the war, maybe, or under a different commander, the Marines might have returned heavy fire in the general direction of the sniper to make him stop.

This time, they hadn't fired, not even once. No one could see exactly where the shots were coming from, and a stream of bullets into the town could have hit innocent civilians and seriously damaged Desgrosseilliers' plan to calm the area.

Back in camp, he said he was proud of his men for being so disciplined.


Meanwhile as negotiations with insurgents drag on and the reports are purposely leaked,  the open season on soldiers goes on, a secret no more.


UPDATE at 9:22 p.m. PDT: The Associated Press is now reporting:

Hoping to find a political solution, the Bush administration has asked the al-Maliki's government to issue an unconditional amnesty to Sunni Muslim insurgents, prominent Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman told The Associated Press. He is a confidant of Jalal Talabani, the country's president.

He and Hassan al-Seneid, a member of parliament close to al-Maliki, also told AP that U.S. officials were engaged in ongoing talks with members of the insurgency, including members of Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party, to seek an end to the fighting that has plagued American forces in Baghdad, surrounding areas and sprawling Anbar province to the west.

Members of al-Qaida in Iraq are not included in either the talks or the U.S. amnesty proposal, which would require Iraqi government approval and is by no means certain since it is controlled by Shiites.

* * * * * * * * * *

This diary by Spread the Word: Iraq-Nam, a daily blog on Iraq.

Originally posted to spread the word IRAQ NAM on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:55 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If this concept spread widely... (5+ / 0-)

    ...through republican ranks, not one Bush supported would win this election, anywhere!!!

    Republican't Leadership is a dangerous combination of cut-backs and incompetence.

    by casamurphy on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:08:39 PM PDT

  •  Powerful stuff, (3+ / 0-)

    STWIN.

    You might want to pare down the amount of material quoted, particularly on the last piece; don't want to run into copyright issues.

    Peace

    As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

    by occams hatchet on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:09:20 PM PDT

  •  "Support our troops" (2+ / 0-)

    yeah... sure....

    how about

    "Anything to get our ass out of this mess......"

    Iraq is a clusterfuck, it's finally becoming obvious - even to "Stay the Course" Bush ("That's only a quarter correct..."..... yeah sure)

    This Admistration is desperate to save face ANYWAY possible - negotiating behind the scenes with "terrorists" - while still trash talking in public.....

    hypocrites

  •  Sometimes I wonder if they want NO WITNESSES to (3+ / 0-)

    what they (BushCo)have done?

    1. Leave KNOWN weapons caches across Iraq unguarded so insurgents can carry them off by the truckload and continue blowing up our troops.
    1. Torture everyone so that they hate us and will join an insurgency, thus increasing the massive fighting against our troops.
    1. Ill-equip our troops so they are scared for their lives, which in turn creates a "free-fire" zone...
    1. Send our troops back on 3rd & 4th deployments.  Certainly the law of averages will catch up with them, and they will die.  

    **Voila**  No witnesses to come back and tell about the atrocities, and lots of dead Iraqis cleared out of the country, to make way for our nice puppet regime(s).

    Meanwhile, steal, steal, steal!

    Illegitimi non carborundum

    by truebeliever on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:20:25 PM PDT

  •  Not Gonna Work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    spread the word IRAQ NAM

    AMERICAN forces are negotiating an amnesty with Sunni insurgents in Iraq to try to defuse the nascent civil war and pave the way for disarmament of Shia militias...

    No way the Shia are going to give up their weapons. The Sadr militia took over a large city last week and flattened 3 police stations.

    Staying the course is crazy but this plan is suicidal.

    I apologize that my sig isn't funny, deep or inspiring. But, it is in italics.

    by Ex Con on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:25:35 PM PDT

  •  Highly Recommended. n/t (2+ / 0-)

    When we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.

    by genethefiend on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:25:57 PM PDT

  •  Extremely disturbing images: warning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    spread the word IRAQ NAM

    required.

    This diary is necessary, inflammatory and useful. The fact is the "words" don't really capture the violence and death that has been a daily staple for Iraqis for the last three years. And for the entire US sponsored Iran-Iraq war.

    Sending people with guns into foreign communities filled with other people with guns only leads to one set of events. We're seeing these now almost for the first time.

    The fact is these images should be on TV screens across America.

  •  I can't believe we ask out military to do... (2+ / 0-)

    this shit.

    FREE TRADE ISN'T FREE!

    by Intercaust on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:31:04 PM PDT

    •  Are they really supposed to just stand there and (0+ / 0-)

      be shot at?  "Proud of their discipline" indeed.  We have an election to win, boys.  What's your puny life compared to that?  Nothing.  Less than nothing.  After all, you volunteered, yes?  You say you had no chance to go to college back home, or to get a job paying more than minimum wage?  Well, that just proves the point.  If you deserved to be anything other than cannon fodder, you wouldn't find yourselves in this mess, now would you?  After all, you don't find Senator So-and-so's kid standing there with you, right?  Cream rises to the top, boys.  Cream rises to the top.

  •  Blame Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. (0+ / 0-)

    Amnesty is a necessary part of a political settlement. The only way to bring peace to Iraq and end our presence there is to have a political settlement, even if it's only temporary while US troops 'redeploy.' One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We'd be doing the same if the roles were reversed.

    •  How... (0+ / 0-)

      ...do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for an amnesty?

      "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -- Ernest Hemingway

      by spread the word IRAQ NAM on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:58:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are mixing metaphors. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        spread the word IRAQ NAM

        The War is the mistake. The Amnesty is part of the process of admitting that the war was a mistake and of ending it.

        The insurgents who are killing US soldiers are combatants, whether of a regular army or not. What do you propose to do about the US soldiers who killed thousands of Iraqi civilians needlessly at checkpoints or out of fear? Or during torture? Do you propose to try them for murder in a court of law?

        This should be about ending the war. Saving lives. Not saving face.

        This diary explains, with reference to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

        btw: I'm a fan of your work. I'm a nobody. I just think that peace is more important than pointing fingers. Seeing as the Iraqi citizens have the most to gain (and deserve it) from an amnesty (and I hope the civil war will end immediately, hah) we owe it to them. They didn't ask us to oust Saddam and destroy their country. Amnesty is our problem, not theirs. Just my 2¢.

        •  Nobody's a nobody... (0+ / 0-)


          ...in my book.

          My "last man to die for amnesty" point was that we are asking the troops to remain sitting ducks even as we secretly tell those who shoot at them that they may fire at will.

          It is not the rightness or wrongess of amnesty that concerns me. It is that no one has a right to negotiate away a soldier's sacrifice, especially the ones that may come tomorrow. If amnesty is to come for those who shoot soldiers tomorrow and the day after, shouldn't the troops be told that as a condition of their future service, and decide for themselves whether they're willing to go out on one more sweep?

          As for amnesty itself, I believe it will prove unworkable. There has been too much Iraqi-on-Iraqi death to prevent the overpowering currents of hate from pooling into a tidal wave of bloody and recurring revenge. The different factions are probably saavy enough to wait until we're gone, but the days of reckoning will come.

          Finally, so as not to ignore your question of "the US soldiers who killed thousands of Iraqi civilians needlessly at checkpoints or out of fear? Or during torture? Do you propose to try them for murder in a court of law?"

          For those who acted out of fear, no. For those who tortured, if acting under lawful orders, no -- otherwise, yes. But the trials that need to be held are for the crimes against humanity, for which our troops are not the ones who bear responsibility.

          p.s. Thanks for your kind words.

          "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -- Ernest Hemingway

          by spread the word IRAQ NAM on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:02:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's past my bedtime, so I should wait until (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            spread the word IRAQ NAM

            my mind is more alert, but.....

            "My "last man to die for amnesty" point was that we are asking the troops to remain sitting ducks even as we secretly tell those who shoot at them that they may fire at will."

            What you describe above is, unfortunately, the job description of US soldiers in Iraq. It's criminal that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et. al. have put them in this position, but it is a volunteer army. It is OUR fault that they are being asked to die for nothing in Iraq. WE failed our country, letting this cabal attempt to carry out their evil plan of global domination. Amnesty is not the problem here, and quibbling over it will not bring our troops home. If the amnesty expedites bringing the troops home then I'm all for it. Aren't you? Who cares about holding Iraqi freedom fighters accountable for killing US troops if we can get the h#@l out ASAP? Why argue about amnesty, meanwhile more of our troops die?

            Amnesty is always a part of ending a conflict. To deny amnesty is to block peace. Josh Marshall has a good analogy here. Think of it as a business deal gone bad, and it's time to accept that you made a bad investment and cut your losses. You still lost your shirt, but at least you've recognized that it's time to stop throwing more good money after bad. You'll never get back the money you lost. You have to mourn your loss and get on with your life. This is the equivalent of amnesty.

            Some people don't know how to deal with loss. Our oligarchs don't. This is why they demand that we continue to believe in their invincibility, and cough up tax dollars and our sons and daughters to fight their wars of hubris. Peace is more important than justice, if it saves the next 'last man to die for.....'

            •  Your sleepy mind does just fine. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CommandoAndy


              However, must disagree that being used a sitting duck is part of any soldier's job description.

              Also must disagree that an amnesty has anything to do with bringing the soldiers home. A massive pullout could be accomplished with few or no casualties, and in almost no time at all.

              No, amnesty is about us staying. And the killing will just go on.

              "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -- Ernest Hemingway

              by spread the word IRAQ NAM on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:17:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site