Tuesday, June 20, 2006
A quick note on amnesty for insurgents and national reconciliation in Iraq
Via Glenn, Mickey Kaus points to a "stunningly cynical" move by Senate Democrats to discredit discussions of amnesty for insurgents in Iraq. What have the Democrats done now? They have proposed the adoption of the following resolution:
Sense of the Senate:
(1) The Iraqi government should not grant amnesty to persons who have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future.
(2) President Bush should immediately notify the government of Iraq that the United States government opposes granting amnesty in the strongest possible terms.
This is not just cynical. It is nothing less but an attempt by the Democratic Senators to sabotage the future of Iraq.
Iraq has no chance unless it goes through a process of national reconciliation. To be successful, any such process will have to include a large proportion of the people who have waged the "insurgency." The insurgency, however, will never lay down its arms if the people who have fought Coalition troops are subject to criminal prosecution. This much is obvious, even to Democrats. That they would oppose it is proof that they are not serious about resolving the war in Iraq.
There is a tougher point here, though, that Americans need to understand. Our soldiers are fighting a war and are therefore lawful targets. To the extent that the insurgency in Iraq has been attacking Coalition military personnel and assets, it is waging war legitimately. That does not make it any less our enemy or the enemy of the great majority of the Iraqi people, but it does mean that in attacking military targets the insurgency's behavior is not criminal, except perhaps in the most technical sense. Any process of national reconciliation, which I believe to be essential to the political survival of Iraq and American policy in the region, requires recognition of that basic idea. American soldiers are not sacrosanct, and the enemy is not criminal by virtue of having attacked or even killed them. Of all Americans, Democratic Senators should understand this. Do they not listen to John Kerry?
Obviously, no amnesty should extend to insurgents who have attacked civilians, whether Iraqi or foreign, either directly or through untargeted terrorism. These insurgents are criminal by any standard of law, and I hope the government of Iraq is ruthless in dealing with them. The intentional murder of civilians, however, is not the legitimate waging of war. Resistance to armed foreign troops is (with some nuanced qualification). We need to be mature enough to recognize that legitimacy and still kill insurgents every chance we get, right up to the moment they lay down their arms.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jun 20, 08:54:00 PM:
I just received an e-mail from Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska about why he supported the resolution. And I just shot off an e-mail to our Democratic Senator form Nebraska, asking what he thought might have happened if, at the conclusion of the U.S. Civil War, no amnesty was provided to the rank and file Confederates. Heck, President Lincoln even offered amnesty just a couple years into the war, when, on December 8, 1863, he signed a Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. (http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/procamn.htm)
Iraq needs every tool at its disposal to gain stability, including the carrot of amnesty, just as Lincoln and Andrew Johnson did during and after the Civil War.
By 
Cassandra, at
Tue Jun 20, 10:18:00 PM:
I agree, TH, and I'm glad you said it.
That was my gut feel too. During the Civil War, many fought not to preserve slavery (most didn't even have slaves) but because they felt their homes had been invaded. As much as I deplore the methods of the insurgency, I can understand some of their reasoning.
