Iraq's Insurgents are Winning; U.S. Must Open Direct Talks
There is no shame in talking to the Iraqi resistance, and if the U.S. were doing so, it would be nothing to hide. But the reality is that the U.S. thinks it embarrassing to talk directly to resistance groups, so it therefore relies on third parties. Much has leaked out in regard to these indirect talks, but no one can state firmly whether or not such talks have actually occurred. There are rumors of letters having been exchanged, but upon closer inspection, it can be surmised that nothing of the sort has taken place, while all evidence does suggest that military operations have continued unabated.
Iraqis wonder why a country like the United States thinks it embarrassing to publicly confirm or deny contacts with Iraqi resistance fighters.
Our sources indicate that most if not all resistance groups share the view that if there is a dialogue, it should be conducted directly with Washington, which hold the reins of power in the country. We also gather from media reports that the U.S. doesn't object to talking to the rebels. Then why doesn't the American side administer direct talks?
Some might say that talking directly to terrorists and Saddamists would undermine American authority and expose the truth that no face-saving formula remains to deal with the resistance. But what kind of face-saving could they be talking about? Almost everyone involved with the Iraqi turmoil has already lost face.
Then there is the issue of whether the U.S. would heed the demands of the Iraqi resistance for a ceasefire and timetable for withdrawal. Some say meeting those demands would be tantamount to cutting and running, and that the U.S. is unwilling to do so.
But experience over the past three years shows that the United States has failed to rectify Iraq's political situation, and the government that it protects is too weak to govern and withstand resistance attacks.
The Iraqi government is losing to the resistance, and Washington cannot win this fight. Is it not logical, then, for the U.S. to take the initiative? I understand how complex the situation has become. But at the same time, it is my conviction dialogue is the only remaining option left to save this country.
Iraqis wonder why a country like the United States thinks it embarrassing to publicly confirm or deny contacts with Iraqi resistance fighters.
Our sources indicate that most if not all resistance groups share the view that if there is a dialogue, it should be conducted directly with Washington, which hold the reins of power in the country. We also gather from media reports that the U.S. doesn't object to talking to the rebels. Then why doesn't the American side administer direct talks?
Some might say that talking directly to terrorists and Saddamists would undermine American authority and expose the truth that no face-saving formula remains to deal with the resistance. But what kind of face-saving could they be talking about? Almost everyone involved with the Iraqi turmoil has already lost face.
Then there is the issue of whether the U.S. would heed the demands of the Iraqi resistance for a ceasefire and timetable for withdrawal. Some say meeting those demands would be tantamount to cutting and running, and that the U.S. is unwilling to do so.
But experience over the past three years shows that the United States has failed to rectify Iraq's political situation, and the government that it protects is too weak to govern and withstand resistance attacks.
The Iraqi government is losing to the resistance, and Washington cannot win this fight. Is it not logical, then, for the U.S. to take the initiative? I understand how complex the situation has become. But at the same time, it is my conviction dialogue is the only remaining option left to save this country.