SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Iraq's Olive Branch

Now that the president's immigration reform plan is in suspended animation on Capitol Hill, it's time to address another amnesty controversy, and this one might make the first seem timid.

Amnesty for an immigrant who swam across the Rio Grande is one thing; how about amnesty for an insurgent who has spent the last few years violently opposing us in Iraq?

And to make the drama even thicker, imagine an Iraqi amnesty plan garnering support from firm red-state types who never would embrace the amnesty angle of an immigration bill. That's the situation as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unveils a reconciliation plan that addresses how his government will handle various postwar issues.

At first blush, the notion of amnesty for anyone who might have aimed a rifle at an American soldier would seem a complete deal breaker. But, as with most issues, a second thoughtful examination might yield a different take.

History is helpful. In war, the winners get to set the terms of postwar relations.

After the Civil War, Confederate forces who previously would have shot Union soldiers dead where they stood needed to be welcomed into the reunited America. Part of the healing after World War II involved abandoning the active desire any American might have had to attack anything or anyone German or Japanese.

This is neither forgiving nor forgetting; it is simply the progression from a war footing to a postwar footing.

The path from those examples to the war on terror is not exactly linear. Both contain elements that constitute important differences.

After World War II, even though German and Japanese forces had done unspeakable things in their war effort, we had the realistic expectation that they would not continue hostilities. We did not expect ragtag commandos from Tokyo and Berlin composed of guys who just couldn't absorb that the war was over.

This war on terror will not feature a signing ceremony on a ship that ends everything in one big drop of a curtain. We have no assurance that combatants will lay down arms just because some terrorist lieutenant shows up displaying momentary good will.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the reconciliation that took place was between Americans. Some had sought to secede, but, once war issues were settled, the common thread of nationality was useful in healing our wounds.

We share no national creed with insurgents; I wonder sometimes whether we share basic humanity. But the Iraqis who are bravely striving to create a free nation share nationality with Iraqi insurgents, and the healing of their rift could go miles toward establishing the kind of stability we seek.

While harboring a healthy skepticism, I ran across a Los Angeles Times op-ed by Lehigh University professor Henri Barkey, who argues that if Iraq makes clear that there will be no amnesty for al-Qaeda warriors from any country, there could be great value in an olive branch offered to countrymen who are ready to leave behind their habits as Baathists or other Sunni rejectionists.

These hangers-on from Saddam's regime would enjoy a benefit that would create instant conflict between them and their former colleagues in the ranks of al-Qaeda and other foreign insurgencies.

The prospect of visible conversions from the insurgency into the swelling ranks of Iraqis willing to invest in a free, civilized nation could be an inspiring boost to the vital PR component to the war - while sucking additional wind from the sails of the enemy.

I still have my reservations, but, ultimately, this will not be settled by the will of the American public or even the Bush administration. Part of the definition of success in Iraq is that Iraqis will decide how their country is run.

On the path to that end, the notion that we are even discussing postwar policies is evidence that real progress is under way.

---

Sphere: Related Content

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: iraq |

Sponsored Links