« WSJ on Office of Special Plans probe | Main | Separated at Birth? »

Khalilzad Wants to Talk?

Time's Michael Ware has penned the single best article on the state of things in Iraq that I can remember, whose focus is the emerging or potential dialogue between the United States and the Baath party-led resistance forces.

It's most useful for its interview with Ambassador Zal Khalilzad. Here are some quotes from Zal:

"We want to deal with their legitimate concerns. We will intensify the engagement, interaction, and discussion with them. ... The fault line between Al Qaeda and the nationalists seems to have increased. ... Insurgency and terror are two different things. ... There is a reaching out to non-criminal Baathists. ... The time has come to reintegrate them into the political process."

It sounds like Zal is starting to get it. Most important is the distinction between "insurgency" and "terror."

So this is important stuff. See my interview, below, with Aiham al-Sammarae, who is mediating (or trying to) between the Baath-military resistance and the United States. He points out that so far there are no high-level talks underway, merely low-level contacts. But clearly Khalilzad has opened to the door to more high-level contacts. (No wonder SCIRI's Abdel Aziz Hakim is ballistic.) I urge you to read the whole piece in Time.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://robertdreyfuss.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/18

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Khalilzad Wants to Talk?:

» Elections Will Not Secure The Future of Iraq from Shining Light in Dark Corners
Bush was his typical "won't back down" cowboy about having elections and a constitution. It sure looks better politically, but if anything, it's made the situation worse. New York Times WASHINGTON and Baghdad will be tempted, with the adoption of a new... [Read More]

» Elections Will Not Secure The Future of Iraq from Shining Light in Dark Corners
Bush was his typical "won't back down" cowboy about having elections and a constitution. It sure looks better politically, but if anything, it's made the situation worse. New York Times WASHINGTON and Baghdad will be tempted, with the adoption of a new... [Read More]

Comments (1)

David M:

But even if Ambassador Khalilzad starts to see the light, will it matter? Does he have enough clout to sell Rummy/Cheney et al?

There's no way that Chalibi would stand by, is there?

So who has more clout amongst our neo-con masters?

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 8, 2005 8:58 AM.

The previous post in this blog was WSJ on Office of Special Plans probe.

The next post in this blog is Separated at Birth?.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35