Split between US, Iraq council [Iraq council wants ceasefire across the country]

The Advertiser ^ | 10apr04 | AP

[yonif]

IRAQ'S Governing Council demanded an immediate ceasefire across the country and a halt to "collective punishment" today in a sign of a split between US-picked Iraqi leaders and American administrators over US military operations.

Abdel Karim Mahud al-Mahamadawi, a secular Shi'ite member of Iraq's interim Governing Council, met with radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is battling US-led forces in the south.

He said he was suspending his membership in the Iraqi Governing Council until the "bleeding in all Iraq" ends.

Another member, Ghazi al-Yawer, threatened to quit the council over the Marines' bloody siege of the city of Fallujah, aimed at uprooting Sunni insurgents.

US forces have been fighting a two-front battle this week - against Sunni militants in Fallujah and al-Sadr's militia in the south - that has killed more than 460 Iraqis and 45 Americans.

Yesterday's halt in the Fallujah assault was requested by the council to allow for talks on reducing the violence, US coalition spokesman Dan Senor said.

But a top commander, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt insisted the talks "are not negotiations".

Al-Yawer, a Sunni council member, and the representative of another Sunni member met overnight with city leaders in talks at a Marine base outside Fallujah, council member Mahmoud Othman said.

Al-Yawer said that while he has not taken any formal steps, " will quit (the council) if the problem is not solved peacefully, because God will not bless a position of power that does not benefit its people".

"If negotiations fail because of the stubbornness of the American side or the failure to adhere to a cease-fire, I will quit 100 per cent," he told Al-Jazeera TV.

The council request for negotiations pointed to the eagerness of the Iraqi leaders to distance themselves from the assault, which has angered many Iraqis and become for some a symbol of resistance against the Americans.

In a statement issued in the early today, the council demanded "an immediate cease fire" and political solutions for the "situations around the country, particularly in Fallujah".

It also called for an end to the "military solution" and "collective punishment that falls on innocent civilians" - a reference to the Fallujah siege.

It denounced terrorism and noted that "no one is above the law" - a reference to activities by both Sunni and Shiite insurgents.

Shiite council member Abdul-Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi met overnight with al-Sadr, whom US commanders have vowed to capture.

"I will not go back to the council until we enter a constructive discussion about Iraq ... to achieve what the Iraqi people really want and to stop the bleeding in all Iraq," he told reporters outside al-Sadr's office in Najaf after the meeting.

"I call on everybody to use the voice of wisdom and avoid violence," he said.

One of the strongest pro-US voices on the council, Adnan Pachachi, denounced the US siege, launched after Sunni insurgents killed four US contract workers and a mob dragged their burned and mutilated bodies through the streets and hung two of them from a bridge.

"These (US) operations were a mass punishment for the people of Fallujah," Pachachi told Al-Arabiya TV.

"It was not right to punish all the people of Fallujah and we consider these operations by the Americans unacceptable and illegal."

Added al-Yawer: "We all agree that those who did that (killed the four Americans) were criminals who deserve to be arrested. But the result was the mass punishment of a city. ... And that we refuse."

Asked about the council members' criticism, Senor said US forces have "a responsibility to address a situation that is hostile".

He said the coalition cannot "just turn our heads and look the other way" when Americans are killed in Fallujah.

[F16Fighter]

"In a statement issued in the early today, the council demanded "an immediate cease fire" and political solutions for the "situations around the country, particularly in Fallujah".

MEMO TO IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL:

When we're done kicking the sh*t out of Iraqi "insurgents" hell-bent on busting our balls while our boys are being sniped at by cowards, we'll hand you back your piece of sh*t hell-hole of a country.

At that time you may resume butchering and blowing up each other to smithereens at your convenience.

[Cap Huff]

How about taking a look at the link in my #58. At least consider a different perspective.

[MagnoliaB]

Well I don't care about any Emperor. Flattening a city, like we flattened Hiroshima, will make a point. Quit F**k*ng with us because we mean business. This is the only thing these agitators will understand.

[jpsb]

Exactly correct, the US needs the monopoly on violence in Iraq. But the fear of G*d into these people, show them we can not and do not lose once a fight has begun. And once a fight has begun, we finish it.

[jpsb]

Thanks I am going to google Kabbah.

[William Martel]

The only point that flatting the city with a nuke will make is that we have the same general lack of respect for human life that they have. If that's the case, how in the hell are we superior to them? Or would you argue that Muslims are somehow less than human?

And if that's the case...how would we be different than the Germans, who saw the Jews for less than human for their perceived betrayal during WW I?

[jaykay]

What happens when they pull something like this after we turn the country over to them? We don't have to do as they say, of course, they will be "sovereign" only because of U.S. forces being present. We will however be acting against the wishes of the government that we installed and are the "guest" of. Al Jazeera, CNN and the BBC will be drooling over that.

[adam_az]

"Abdel Karim Mahud al-Mahamadawi, a secular Shi'ite member of Iraq's interim Governing Council..."

WTF is a "Secular Shi'ite?"

[Mo1]

FNC is airing a live news conference in Bagdad right now

[Robert_Paulson2]

read him before.
and will continue to.

seems to have a good view of strategy and tactics.
posts here too.

it helps balance the press bs.
it should be required reading.

his four klicks wide analogy really made some sense.
along with the tactics of enemy "self-identification".

very understandable, reasonable and useful things indeed.

[jpsb]

Thanks, I had a look. Completely understand the need for a polictical solution at some point in time. But we are in a fight, we did not ask for it and we did not start it, so in my mind the only way to end it is to win it. As as a USMC Veitnam ear vet, I get really pissed then the troops are not allowed to win for political reasons that ALWAYS turn to crap.

[Robert_Paulson2]

details please?
just a line or two in summary... we are FNC impaired.

[Jorge]

Put the fear of G*d into these people, show them we can not and do not lose once a fight has begun. And once a fight has begun, we finish it.

Well said. We didn't kick Saddam out of power just to turn the country over to western hating Islamic radicals.

If these people want to see what American occupation is like then all they have to do is keep resisting the democracy we are trying to give them.

There is no doubt that most Iraqis want freedom and democracy..they are just so beaten down from years of oppression that they are afraid to stand up to these power hungry nuts and Islamic radicals who want to be dictators.

[jpsb]

Big BUMP to that.

[txrangerette]

Caught the very end...something
about another ceasefire?

???

[jpsb]

Yes, I was very worried two days ago when the press was reporting that the Sunni and Shias were uniting and had a column break thru Marine lines. Well that turned out to be BS, Thank God. There is no general resistance, these fighters are the ones that hate us, will alway hate us and would never allow a free Iraq. To give them a cease fire would be to give them a victory and doom any chance Iraq has. This is no time to go wobbly.

[jpsb]

Shi'ite=Race?

[Cap Huff]

I understand the frustration. Although I did not serve in Viet Nam (I came on active duty [Air Force] six months after the Paris Accords) the consequences of the decisions made were facts that became a part of my early service years.

I think most of us realize that ultimately military actions are designed to bring about political solutions. The direction and the timing are often the area of biggest controversy.

[dougherty]

If they want a ceasefire, why don't they ask their fellow citizens to lay down their arms and behave?

[First_Salute]

Bump.