It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: Report: U.S. in Secret Talks with Iraqi Insurgents

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:29 PM
Back channel talks may be occurring between U.S. diplomats and Sunni insurgent group in an effort to end fighting in Iraq. The information released by Time magazine citied Pentagon and other sources. A recent meeting between two members of the U.S. military and a former member of the Saddam Hussein regime that represents the nationalist insurgency occurred. According to Time the Iraqi indicated that "we are ready to work with you".
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq's Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon and other sources.

The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel" communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources told the magazine.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The talks are with the nationalist groups and not the al-Queada backed insurgents. However, if the former regime loyalists can be brought into the fold, the security situation would be simplified somewhat. Most of the kidnappings and beheading have not been from the nationalist group but rather the Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi group. His group is made up primarily foreign fighters and have no interest in the future Iraq beyond terrorism. It also highlights the rift between the more radical and more moderate elements of Islam. No doubt the Zarqawi group would not 'sit down" and talk.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:46 PM
Possible future Iraqi amnesty program as was instituted by the Afghanistan government to the Taliban in the works?

Seems viable.


posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:48 PM
Could the Sunni insurgants start to perceive the elected sji'ite government more as a threat than the Amercan presence ????

There are several sunni factions at work, you have the former Saddam loyalists (from who many can be pesrsuaded with pro,mises about money and power and or the threat of being ruled by sji'ites) and then you have the network of Al-Zarqawi , who is putting up the fight for the global Jihad , I don't think that they mean talks with the latter...

[edit on 20-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Possible future Iraqi amnesty program as was instituted by the Afghanistan government to the Taliban in the works?Seems viable.

Yes, and I also think that with the elections in place, the native Iraqi insurgency may be looking for a way out. It would be very interesting to see who made the most election threats in the Sunni areas the native insurgency or the OB backed insurgents? Sunni's seem to have been caught by surprise by the election's success and are now looking to salvage what they can.

At worst its a neutral development, at best something may come of it and make things a bit easier for the coalition and the Iraqi people themselves.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:52 PM
About Damn Time

It's too bad these guys couldn't see the handwriting on the wall a little sooner.

A lot of innocent people who are currently dead would not be if it weren't for the continued -- and cowardly -- attacks of the insurgents and terrorists.

They've now got the good sense to talk things over, and here's hoping they use it wisely.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 01:43 PM
Well I think US has not choice but to sit and listen to the Sunnis they have lots of complains that they have been mistreated by the now majority Shiites and US forces.

So now US is trying to separate the "insurgency" that roams with Zarqawi, and the "insurgency" that is against the Shiite and US mistreatment of their population.

funny it was in the news this morning, the US troops were seen sitting with Shiite, leader Sadr, while it was a meeting of many Sunnis complaining to a panel of US troops and Shiite Iraqis leaders.

I guess US is trying to make sure they separate the Unhappy "insurgents" from the "terrorist" ones that follow Zarqawi.

I hope they come to some terms.

On the other hand Sadr, wants the US to move out of towns that are now Shiite control and leave the Shiites do their job.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:40 PM
Marg, I do not think the U.S. is trying as you think to separate the insurgents. They have done so in partcular since the Margaret Hassan beheading. The nationalistic insurgents want to retore the Baathist rule in Iraq, the Al-Qeada insurgents want to kill the infidel and would prefer the inevitable Sunni / Shiite civil war as chaos in the country would give them a perfect base of operations.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:49 PM
I tell you what the way the Sunnis were complaining on the news to the US and Shiites leaders, I have not doubt it will be some more retaliation against the Shiite and US troops from the sunni population and back up by Zarqawi.

And to make matter worst the Religious leaders of the Sunni are also backing up the complains.

And then you have the Shiites in power and the Shiites followers of Sadr. So more is to come for sure.

US is trying to make the Sunnis trust the Shiite led forces, like police and military, but is going to be a hard one to sell.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:58 PM
If the Sunni terrorist can be taken out of play, more force can be brought to bear on the Al-Qeada bunch of merry men.

The Sunni's bet the farm on the elections being a total disaster and lost. Now they are scrambling for scraps and maybe the complaints are the way of playing the sympathy card?????

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 04:02 PM
Yes, but I am starting to see more of the character Chalabi, getting to involve in the government in Iraq, and to opinionated, I think he is on an agenda, and is not going to be for the best interest of the Iraqi people but for his own wallet.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:33 AM
Our Man Chalabi?

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes, but I am starting to see more of the character Chalabi

No doubt about it, Chalabi is out for himself. And the man is a serious player -- one of the best alive.

I don't care for the man personally, but I respect his considerable talent.

I also suspect that his public falling-out with the CIA was a staged event, and that he's still one of ours -- to the extent he belongs to anyone other than himself, itself a fair question.

But of course, I have no proof, and if I did, I wouldn't post it if he really was one of ours. I'm an American, after all.

In Chalabi's case, he's good enough at his craft that I really don't know the exact nature of his game these days, but I strongly suspect he's looking better than ever in terms of his money and power positions.

Fascinating to watch and speculate about, whatever the case may be.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:55 AM

Originally posted by FredT
Back channel talks may be occurring between U.S. diplomats and Sunni insurgent group in an effort to end fighting in Iraq.

There is one main problem I see with this situation.

The Iraqi insurgency is made up of a multitude of separate cells, which could be working completely independently to each other (Due to heavy US monitoring of any fast forms of communication). The fact that attacks occur over huge areas without such communication points to this being true.

So if you make a 'deal' with one cell what guarantee is there that the other 999+ cells will concur?

Other points to take into account:

1) Most of these resistance groups are heavily religious, and could view such negotiations as an insult to try and 'bribe' them.

2) These negotiations could be viewed by the insurgency that the US position is 'weakening' due to the constant attacks; this could make the insurgents fight even harder thinking that they are gaining the initiative.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 05:18 AM
The Case For Discussion

The alternative in all of these cases is continued killing. At some point, near or far, the fighting will end.

The open question is how many more people will die before it does. If discussion of any kind helps bring peace sooner, what's wrong with that?

An uncertain peace is far better than certain war.

I see no reason why the warring parties should not be talking.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:09 AM
Maybe it is us, the US, that needed to more willing to talk. Iraq and its players aren't sized up well in the press. Al-Qeuda is a small force in Iraq. Gangs and local militas are the major players. The elections have just ramped up the power grab. Make no mistake, the US holds all the cards. Its goal, win a bad civ game. The sunnis maybe the only group that will support the US in years to come! The shiites are using this war to gain power for what? No one is talking about that. A large amount of shiites are supported by Iran. Iran's interest shouldn't be overlooked. We can't stay in Iraq forever. Who will best work with the US down the road? What are we doing to support a government not the mobb in Iraq. No one needs to be given freedom. It has already been given to all. The people of Iraq need time to build a new culture. If you wanted to study ancient cultures, Iraq is a great living one. Asking its people to understand our consumer based world overnight will only allow gangs and thugs to corputed this new government. Bush and the US didn't think about the can of worms it has uponed. We will only make things worse if we let the majority party in Iraq control its new government. Eight billion spent of the war and few Iraqis any richer on on their way to a job. Maybe after 40 billion in investments and a real share of the US way of life, thing maybe ready for a free government.

new topics

top topics


log in