We Don't Negoiate With Terrorists

I first saw these links at Whiskey Bar, and they underscore how desperate Team Bush is getting re: Iraq--no wonder Rove is working himself up into such a lather:

After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies.

The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq...

The Iraqi sources, who have proved reliable in the past, said the American team included senior military and intelligence officers, a civilian staffer from Congress and a representative of the US embassy in Baghdad.

On the rebel side were representatives of insurgent groups including Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings and killed 22 people in the dining hall of an American base at Mosul last Christmas.

Also represented was the so-called Islamic Army in Iraq, which murdered Enzo Baldoni, an Italian journalist, last August; the Iraqi Liberation Army; Jaish Mohammed and other smaller factions. According to an Iraqi commander, one of the Americans introduced himself as “a representative of the Pentagon” and declared himself ready to “find ways of stopping the bloodshed on both sides and to listen to demands and grievances”.

The US officer also indicated that the contents of any discussion would be relayed to his superiors in Washington.

The Americans were then said to have launched into a lengthy session of questioning about the structure of the insurgency, which is far from a unified entity.
Coalition military intelligence has identified at least four separate strands of anti-American opposition, including Zarqawi’s jihadists, former members of Saddam’s regime, Sunni Arab nationalists and criminal gangs.

The links between these groups remain murky and the American team began to irritate the Iraqis with what some saw as a crude attempt to gather intelligence. They asked questions about the “hierarchy and logistics of the groups, how they functioned, how orders were dispatched, how they divide their work and so on”, the Iraqi source said.

“It was a boring line of questioning that indicated an attempt to discover more about their enemy than about finding solutions,” one of the sources added. “We told the translator to inform them that if they persisted with this line we would all walk out of the meeting.”

The Iraqis had agreed beforehand to focus on their main demand, “a guaranteed timetable of American withdrawal from Iraq”, the source said. “We told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless.”

There was no word on whether or not US negotiaters were interested in holding therapy sessions with the insurgents, but at least one person--Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--has certainly changed his tune lately, extolling the virtue of sweet tea and diplomatic tact (while most likely hoping that this bombshell--no pun intended--can be hidden in plain sight, which is a lot easier than it seems, thanks to a neutered media):

"They [contacts] go on all the time..."

Then he blamed the Iraqis:

"...the Iraqis have a sovereign government. They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those [relationships] from time to time."

Finally, Rummy sought to hedge the bet, as it were, by claiming that the US is "not going to try to bring in the people with blood on their hands," which, as anyone reading the Times article can see, is bullshit...of course, considering the sheer volume of steaming piles this administration has served up to at least a partially willing public, it's not surprising they'd put it on the menu yet again.

Now, speaking of bullshit, Gen. John Abizaid managed to pull a metric out of his ass hat last night, suggesting that we could claim victory IF we manage to stick around long enough to train an Iraqi security force ("There's only one way for the insurgents to win: that's to drive us out before the Iraqis are ready to assume the battle space"). Sounds like Abizaid is asking for seconds.

The "new and improved" Iraqi army, or security force, or legion of traffic cops, or whatever you want to call it isn't capable of properly functioning as dogcatcher. It's a pathetic mix and match of unmotivated young men looking for a paycheck and infiltrators--the former likely scared shitless they'll be targeted for collaborating (notice how many of these folks are wearing ski masks to hide their identity) the latter probably laughing at how easy it is to pull a fast one on us.

Oh, and Rumsfeld had a reaction to what amounts to a crisis of epic proportions with comments that sound like he hasn't quite awakened from his afternoon nap ("Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years"...yawn--ok, I made up the "yawn" part, but)...which again, is quite a different tune from his jaunty phraseology two years ago ("I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that")--phraseology echoed by other players for Team Bush back during Mission Accomplished/flight-suit-dress-up-days. And, the violence continues.

Which means we can expect Team Bush to truly "go on the offensive," with emphasis on "offensive," i.e., witness the heart of the team, Dick Cheney, going after GOP Senator Chuck Hegel--or Rove's rant last week. Iraq is figuratively blowing up in their faces, and not so figuratively blowing up all around our military. As a result, the "tough guys," the ones who "know how to deal with terrorists," are, well, showing their inner wimp (which, as Billmon correctly notes, might be the ONLY, albeit slim, chance we have of salvaging anything in Iraq, i.e., the new century's "peace with honor"). But considering the rhetorical corner the wingnuts have insisted on putting themselves in, I expect to see quite a lot of bared teeth and hissing from them over the next few months as Iraq continues the downward slide.

Tomorrow, Bush will address the nation, using his classic, if ironic, backdrop of active duty soldiers. My guess is that his speech will be on the bland side, i.e., the good cop to RoveCheney's cornered weaselings. But neither vanilla paeans nor vicious howlings will affect the bottom line, which is that Iraq is already lost, and it's just a matter of time before the total costs are accounted for, in lives lost or shattered, and money spent. The only question is how low this administration will stoop in trying to maintain their grip on power. Something tells me that line is VERY low--like whaleshit at the bottom of the ocean low.