Oh how I love Huffington Post. It continually provides me with people who have a complete lack of understanding of how things work.
Take Mr. Robert Naiman:
This past weekend we had a powerful demonstration of what dialogue with Iran could accomplish in Iraq. A major escalation of conflict between Iraqi government forces and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia was halted when Iraqi parliamentarians from the government coalition negotiated an agreement with Sadr. This agreement was negotiated not in Annapolis, but in the Iranian city of Qom. The head of Iran's Quds force - which the Bush Administration, at the urging of Senator Clinton, has designated as a terrorist organization - helped broker the agreement, McClatchy News reports.
The consequences of the agreement were swift. Following Sadr's statement, fighting fell dramatically.
There are people in Basra and Baghdad who are alive today, who would not be alive today if those Iraqi lawmakers had not traveled to Iran and negotiated that agreement - perhaps 100 people, judging from the casualty figures in Basra and Baghdad reported yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. And it is likely that there are U.S. soldiers who are alive today who would not be alive today if Iraqi lawmakers from the government coalition had not gone to Iran to negotiate an agreement - attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq "soared" in response to the Basra offensive, the Washington Post reports today.
If the goal of the United States is to reduce violence and stabilize the country so that U.S. soldiers can withdraw, why aren't we talking to Iran? If Iraqi lawmakers from the government coalition can talk to Iran, why can't we do it?
That's a pretty good argument if you weren't paying attention.
However, when people are attacking you, and training others to attack you, why should they be given an opportunity to sit down and chat with you when they are hiding amongst the civilian population?
When they are blowing up the local market and killing civilians, what makes them deserve such treatment? All you're allowing them to do is regroup and rearm themselves.
They should be hunted down and captured or killed. Only standing armies of sovereign nations get to sit down and talk about a truce.
When Muqtada Al-Sadr says: "The Al-Sadr movement is Islamic even more than it is Iraqi. An attack against any Islamic country or people will mean that the Al-Sadr movement will become an interested party." it sounds awfully familiar.
It's the same thing that Osama Bin Laden said about Saudi Arabia and defending it from Saddam's invasion.
But what's worse is that Al-Sadr is talking about this from his Iranian backers, not himself:
Interviewer: Do you support it? Do you support armed resistance against the forces you call "occupiers"?
Muqtada Al-Sadr: Against the occupiers – yes, but not against others.
That paints him as a good guy, yet his militia are directly responsible for the torture and murders of hundreds of people.
Al-Sadr himself was wanted for the murder of a rival cleric.
Yet, Robert Naiman wants to have a friendly chat with this maniac and give him legitimacy.
Sure, while we're at it, let's have a nice chat with Osama Bin Laden and his thugs shall we? What about the rioters in Denmark over the cartoons? Anyone want to yuck it up with Charles Manson?
You don't make a deal with people like these, you eradicate them like the vermin they are.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment