As the Iraqi government and various “insurgent” factions toss around various ideas for ending the strife, a key element being debated is “amnesty” for the anti-government forces.
Such is always an element in the settlement of any conflict. There has to come a point where the roles everyone played in the struggle is weighed, and the decision on what punishment — if any — is merited.
But it’s amazing to hear the loudest “hawks” denouncing the mere notion of such a plan are the ones who are the staunchest opponents of the war, those who insist that Bush “lied” us into the war, who call for a withdrawal — if not immediately, than by a firm deadline.
Here’s a little hint, surrender monkeys: if we follow your plans, then we forfeit any right to have any say in the terms settled between the Iraqi government and their enemies. The agreement will be strictly between the concerned parties, and we will not be among them if we’re gone.
It reminds me of John Kerry’s plan for settling the Iraqi situation: he thought the best thing was to have a sit-down between all the concerned parties, and let them hammer it out. But to Kerry, the “concerned parties” included Iran and Syria, but somehow the Iraqi government itself wasn’t to have any say.
Yet again, the Democrats want it both ways. They want to cut and run out of Iraq, yet have a firm say in what happens after we leave. Pity things don’t work that way.