Yes to Amnesty — For Insurgents Who Give Up

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, an Army pilot during World War II, recalled last week how much he once despised the Japanese.

“When I left the war and came home, I had a deep hatred for the Japanese,” Stevens said on the Senate floor. “Today, Mr. President, I have a granddaughter who is Japanese. I have a daughter-in-law who is Japanese, and her parents were involved in World War II.”

Stevens was explaining his opposition to an amendment, promoted by Senate Democrats, expressing the sense of Congress “that the government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

The amendment was spawned when the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a Shiite, floated amnesty as part of a possible reconciliation deal designed to inspire Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and participate in Iraq’s nascent democracy.

Attacking the proposal was a tempting trifecta for liberal opportunists: They could simultaneously claim they were for the troops, tough on terrorists and against the war-or at least against the way President Bush is prosecuting the war.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called a snap press conference with co-sponsors Bill Nelson of Florida and Bob Menendez of New Jersey-both of whom face potentially tough re-election battles. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, summed up the Democrats’ argument: “It is an affront, first and foremost, to our soldiers and their families, and second, to every American.”

Ted Stevens, however, was not affronted. Why treat all Iraqi insurgents differently than we treated Japanese soldiers after World War II, he asked on the Senate floor. “I believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country, to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we are trying to do, that it is worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy,” he said. “And if that is amnesty, I am for it.”

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who spent five years as a P.O.W. in North Vietnam, agreed. “The larger issue here is, I believe, that our goal is to bring an end to conflict as quickly as possible,” McCain said on the floor. “If that means, in return for laying down their arms, that some are allowed an amnesty or allowed to reenter the society of Iraq, in a peaceful manner, in a productive manner, as has happened in South Africa, El Salvador, and is happening in Colombia, and many other insurgencies throughout history, than I think, we should welcome it.”
Stevens and McCain are right. To deny amnesty to every Iraqi insurgent who ever took up arms against U.S. forces would cost lives and postpone peace.

In war, there is a bright moral line: Don’t target civilians. The late Zarqawi and his al Qaeda terrorists obliterated that line. They are war criminals and should be treated as war criminals. There must be no amnesty for al Qaeda terrorists.

But not all Iraqi insurgents are al Qaeda terrorists. Indeed, President Bush’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” points to three different enemies in Iraq and three different tactics for dealing with them. These are: 1) al Qaeda terrorists, who need to be “killed or captured,” 2) un-repented Baathists, most of whom must be “marginalized,” and 3) Sunni rejectionists, the largest group, who “are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process hurt their interests.”

“We judge that over time many in this group will increasingly support a democratic Iraq provided that the federal government protects minority rights and the legitimate interests of all communities,” Bush’s strategy concluded.

Yet, the Iraqi government reacted in true democratic fashion to the Democrats’ outcry against amnesty: It flipped and flopped. Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie told CNN on Thursday: “We will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.”

Then on Sunday the Los Angeles Times headlined a story: “Amnesty for Iraqi Rebels is Planned.” The story reported that Maliki’s government is indeed putting together an amnesty proposal. “We are ready to sit around a table with all the Iraqis, even those who participated in the resistance and now repent that,” Abbas Bayati, a Shiite member of the Iraqi parliament told the paper.

“The general direction and general understanding among politicians is that now is the time to differentiate between the extremists and foreign fighters on the one side and the native Iraqi people in the resistance,” said Alla Makki, a Sunni member of the parliament.

Tuesday, the Senate voted 63 to 34 for an amendment defensively sponsored by Republican Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was joined by Senate Armed Service Chairman John Warner of Virginia. It expressed respect for Iraq’s right to exercise its “sovereignty,” supported al-Rubaie’s vow never to grant amnesty to “terrorists” who attacked U.S. troops, and said, “History records that governments derived of free elections should not grant amnesty to those who have committed war crimes or terrorist acts.” No Republicans opposed this amendment.

Then the Senate voted 79-19 for the sweeping Nelson-Menendez amendment opposing amnesty for every Iraqi insurgent who ever fought against the U.S. All 19 opponents were Republicans, including Stevens, McCain, and solid conservatives such as Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jon Kyl of Arizona.

If Prime Minister Maliki can persuade Sunni rejectionists to lay down their arms in return for amnesty, the war will be won, and we may someday see Iraqi Sunnis the way we now see our friends in Japan. But if Harry Reid and Company persuade the Sunni rejectionists that we will treat them as war criminals no matter what they do, the war may never be won.

Sunni Rejectionists Will Be Confronted Differently Than Al Qaeda Terrorists

Bush Strategy Sees Three Enemies in Iraq

In November, the Bush Administration’s National Security Council published a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” Here is an excerpt from that document, which describes our enemies in Iraq and how they must be dealt with:

Our Enemies and Their Goals

The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. These three groups share a common opposition to the elected Iraqi government and to the presence of Coalition forces, but otherwise have separate and to some extent incompatible goals.

Rejectionists are the largest group. They are largely Sunni Arabs who have not embraced the shift from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to a democratically governed state. Not all Sunni Arabs fall into this category. But those that do are against a new Iraq in which they are no longer the privileged elite. Most of these rejectionists opposed the new constitution, but many in their ranks are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests.

We judge that over time many in this group will increasingly support a democratic Iraq provided that the federal government protects minority rights and the legitimate interests of all communities.

Saddamists and former regime loyalists harbor dreams of reestablishing a Ba'athist dictatorship and have played a lead role in fomenting wider sentiment against the Iraqi government and the Coalition.

We judge that few from this group can be won over to support a democratic Iraq, but that this group can be marginalized to the point where it can and will be defeated by Iraqi forces.

Terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida make up the smallest enemy group but are the most lethal and pose the most immediate threat because 1) they are responsible for the most dramatic atrocities, which kill the most people and function as a recruiting tool for further terrorism and 2) they espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden - chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland.

The terrorists have identified Iraq as central to their global aspirations. For that reason, terrorists and extremists from all parts of the Middle East and North Africa have found their way to Iraq and made common cause with indigenous religious extremists and former members of Saddam's regime. This group cannot be won over and must be defeated - killed or captured - through sustained counterterrorism operations.