Call for a Truce

Published on September 18, 2007 By stevendedalus In Politics

If Eisenhower could end hostilities in Korea then why can it not be done in Iraq? General Petraeus should use the surge as an ultimatum to end hostilities among insurgents, both Sunni and Shia and demand an emergency consortium to negotiate a truce with the stipulation that Qaeda forces be denounced as unwelcome intruders and condemnation of any Iraqi or sub cell that coöperates with terrorists. It is expected that insurgents inform on Qaeda leaders and camps in order that a special force consisting of Sunni, Shia and US troops launch a drive to wipe out terrorists.

Meanwhile, the State Department should meet with Egypt, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia for the express purpose to join in this consortium to find common ground, along with joining the US with funds and materiel to achieve progress in Iraq’s infrastructure.

If within a month the truce does not materialize and there is no coöperation in wiping out al Qaeda, the US shall appeal to the UN for peacekeeping forces made up of Arab nations mentioned above to unite with US forces. If the appeal is not met, a draw down of US troops will begin immediately at the rate of 30,000 per month.

Comments

singrdave

on Sep 18, 2007

The US government has a stated policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists.

I know that we do -- looking squarely at America's hosting of various rounds of Israel/Palestinian talks -- but we don't.

Dr Guy

on Sep 18, 2007

As you are find of saying, this is not like past wars, and Korea is no exception. We were dealing with a government then. Now we are not. Other than the covert support by Syria and Iran, there are no governments behind the insurgency.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 18, 2007

Let's see, since the signing of the ceasefire there have been 61 "incidence" of violence along the DMZ resulting in the deaths of 678 US and ROK troops and the wounding of 11,672.

On top of that, there was Op Red Fox in 68, Op Paul Bunyon in 76, ROK Park Succession Crisis 93-94, Korean Nuclear Crisis 93-94 and Op Northern Limit Line from 1999-05.

Now, tell me again how this "ceasefire agreement" has meant an end to the hostilities?

When Gen. Schwartzkoft met with Iraqi officials at Safwan, Iraq, he said that he wasn't there to negotiate a ceasefire, but to accept their unconditional surrender. Wouldn't it have been great if that's what he was able to do? Instead we got one of the most worthless wastes of paper and lives there is... a Ceasefire agreement.

The ceasefire "ending" the Korean war isn't an example of how dipomacy succeeds, it documents diplomacy's darkest hour. The Ceasefire of 91 was proof that we didn't learn from the past. Nothing is solved by a ceasefire, it only spreads the violence over a longer period of time.

WWW Link

stevendedalus

on Sep 18, 2007

How did the House of Saud manage an exemption to that rule?

Good Show!

stevendedalus

on Sep 18, 2007

Let's see, since the signing of the ceasefire there have been 61 "incidence" of violence along the DMZ resulting in the deaths of 678 US and ROK troops and the wounding of 11,672.

Good old Google, a great designated hitter. Nevertheless, over fifty years...?

A cease fire or a truce is supposed to be a shor term solution until a final settlement is reached. Granted politicians screw up. I advocated an unconditional surrender immediately following shock and awe, along with total disarmament. We both know that was not going to happen.

stevendedalus

on Sep 18, 2007

there are no governments behind the insurgency.

according to Bush and Petraeus there is.

Dr Guy

on Sep 18, 2007

Other than the covert support by Syria and Iran

there are no governments behind the insurgency.
according to Bush and Petraeus there is.

YOu should have quoted the whole line. You would see that I am not arguing with Bush and Petraeus, nor them with me.

SSG Geezer

on Sep 18, 2007

Not a good example Steven,
When Ike promised to "Go to Korea" it was a campaign promise after a great deal of back and forth combat that cost the lives of in excess of 1.5 million civilians. During the Korean War proper, our country never mobilized it's resources to support the warfighter.
We also never built support for our actions at home. It was a good thing the commies abstained in the UN Security council, or it would have been even uglier on the home front prior to the armistice. Maybe massive protests and such? All wars are wars of morale and we never had an Ernie Pyle in Korea. The closest thing we have now is the blogger on the scene. From the blogs I have seen they are as accurate and probably less biased than the MSM.
Support during the 2nd World War was by no means unanimous and surprisingly enough, The left only supported the war until after the Nazis were swallowed up by the Soviets and Allies.

Ike was also a lot more worrisome to the Soviet and Chinese backers of the Kim Il Sung. As a General and Commander, they felt Ike was more likely to go for a military solution. (Victory). So they were more ready to negotiate. (Force their clients to negotiate).
Perhaps they felt that he might actually maintain control of his generals.

Ultimatum???? A threat to declare war, begin combat operations against, act forcefully against if your demands are not met. Since we are in combat now, what form should our ultimatum take? Threaten to invade Syria? Iran? Please find me the troops first. perhaps a little scorched earth? Kind of difficult to win their hearts and minds if they are all dead. Isn't the surge a sort of ultimatum in itself? Or would you think of it as a desperate attempt at redemption for the administration caused by their 6P's?
6p's: Piss poor planning = Piss poor performance

stevendedalus

on Sep 19, 2007

YOu should have quoted the whole line.

No need to, I got your drift, but Bush makes it clear that there is a central government in Iraq--though fuzzy.

stevendedalus

on Sep 19, 2007

Isn't the surge a sort of ultimatum in itself?

Yes, so why not apply political pressure?

Ultimatum???? A threat to declare war, begin combat operations against, act forcefully against if your demands are not met. Since we are in combat now, what form should our ultimatum take?

You are so good at overreacting. If it is true that the surge has an effect, then why not use this pressure on the political scene and make a strong push for ending hostilities at least tentatively?

The left only supported the war until after the Nazis were swallowed up by the Soviets and Allies.

Unbelievable! You are dead wrong; Republicans were isolationists--even against the lend lease--all the way up to Pearl Harbor.

stevendedalus

on Sep 19, 2007

Nuke-u-lar?

I sometimes wish we could just wipe out some undesirables.

SSG Geezer

on Sep 20, 2007

I am sorry you feel I was overreacting Steven, that was not my intent. I can look at the scheduled deployments of the units the military currently has and say, "where are the troops going to come from?" If our ultimatum was to a group or government we are not currently deployed against. Since you were referring to a surge that is at least partly successful as the "stick" in any ultimatum, I will apologize for my lack of comprehension.

I wish we could just wipe out the undesirables, it's just that I don't trust the government to know who is deserving of the title. The term undesirables sounds a little too dictator for life to me. As history has proved, the government really doesn't know what to do with intelligence information.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!