posted on November 22, 2005 06:30:02 AM new
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.
The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.
The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraq President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time -- reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.
On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera.
Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position.
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.
The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."
The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.
"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.
The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.
The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.
Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam Hussein regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.
The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time to show our cards. Is this an attempt to instill freedom or is it an occupation.
Kind of difficult to say that you are supporting unity among the political groups and respect for their leadership if we then ignore their wishes.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 23, 2005 05:14:57 AM new
Since Iraq still belongs to Iraqis, maybe they should make the decision as to whether we stay or go. Or, is the US government afraid of what the outcome would be? Since Bush declared the war over long ago, what we have now is an occupation. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it's still an occupation.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on November 23, 2005 06:15:12 AM new
I think that would be a good idea cheryl, if the Iraqi government would actually do it. I think though they (government) want us there and do not really want us to leave.
We shouldn't be afraid to offer an intelligent timeline to the Iraqi's and I think it would help make them stronger.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
posted on November 23, 2005 11:11:25 AM new
He hasn't offered one, but unlike Murtha he has the ability to only be thought a fool because of his silence than to speak and remove all doubt.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
posted on November 23, 2005 11:38:45 AM new
What exactly is wrong with saying we'll leave when the Iraqi government can stand on its own?
Sure, we can pull out tomorrow if we want, but Iran or somebody else would be running the show in two weeks!
I have NO doubt that if the Iraqi government asked us to pull out, we would. They know better than to ask- they wouldn't live long after we left.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on November 23, 2005 04:23:29 PM newSince Iraq still belongs to Iraqis, maybe they should make the decision as to whether we stay or go. Or, is the US government afraid of what the outcome would be? Since Bush declared the war over long ago, what we have now is an occupation. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it's still an occupation.
There was an article in the newspaper that even the Iraqi are now wanting a timetable for the US to withdrawl its troops.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 23, 2005 08:14:11 PM new
Replay - it seems you may not be paying attention. Or reading the OP. They just asked for the timeline.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
)