Sunni Insurgent groups seeking Truce

[usarmy18]

Apparently, several (seven) of the Sunni "Resistance" groups are throwing in the towel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13552784/

I guess we're not doing as bad in Iraq as alot of people like to think.

Also, in the same article it states how Gen. Casey, the top commander in Iraq, has laid plans to reduce the number of US brigades in Iraq from the 13 or 14 that are there now, to 5 or 6 by the end of 2007. So I'm getting the feeling that there is a vastly different story on the ground in Iraq then what is portrayed in the media if we're going to cut our forces in half by the end of next year.

Thoughts?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

In the Arab world, the offer of a truce has vastly different meaning than it does in the West, very few people understand that, even very highly placed people who get paid lots of money to understand those sorts of things

In short: this is meaningless, and the insurgent violence will continue, if not escalate.

 

[IglooDame]

In the Arab world, the offer of a truce has vastly different meaning than it does in the West, very few people understand that, even very highly placed people who get paid lots of money to understand those sorts of things

In short: this is meaningless, and the insurgent violence will continue, if not escalate.

So, what's the meaning of an offer of a truce in the Arab world then?

 

[Mastreditr111]

i think he is saying that they are proposing a truce only so they can recover and renew their assault on their own terms, but i hope it isnt true

 

[Bozo Erectus]

So, what's the meaning of an offer of a truce in the Arab world then?

Well, first of all, since Day One, Muslims exempt themselves from honoring truces with infidels. Also, in their tradition, its the stronger party who offers truce, before delivering the death stroke.

 

[Elrohir]

So, what's the meaning of an offer of a truce in the Arab world then?

More properly, the Muslim concept of truth is different from a Western, or Christian one. It's called the "hudna" and Wikipeida has a good article on it.

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

Basically, the Islamic idea of a "truce" or "treaty" isn't how other cultures view it. They see it as a temporary, not permanent, thing, that is to be enacted when they can't win, so that they can requip themselves to fight back later, and cause even more damage, and (For them) hopefully win. In fundamentalist, classical Muslim thought, there really isn't such thing as a permanent peace with the "infidel" - just a truce until they're strong enough to wipe him out.

I think this (The offer of a truce) is significant, in that it shows that the war in Iraq is not going well for the insurgency, and, despite the awful press coverage, progress is actually being made. I think this is a good sign. However, taking this to mean that these groups will never fight America or the Iraqi government again would be a mistake. There are only two ways to stop that: First, convince them they are wrong, either through economic and political success (Unlikely); or kill or imprison them, so that they can do no more harm. The first is preferable, but if they break this truce within ten years (As is likely) then the second will become necessary.

 

[amadeus]

Is this like a Hamas truce, where the terrorists keep attacking, but you get criticized if you respond? Or is it like a PLO truce, where the terrorism stops for a month while they rearm?

We should agree to the truce, draw them out, and then do away with them. It's the only way we'll stop them for sure.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The current government of Iraq cannot be allowed to exist, because it was installed by foreign infidels. Truces mean nothing in that context.