Some have noted the apparent rush of charges being brought against American soldiers and Marines recently for crimes against Iraqi civilians.
There is also the ongoing story of the Iraqi government discussing amnesty for certain elements of the insurgency.
As I've mentioned for a couple years at least since this was first brought up, check your outrage and keep your eye on our objective. We are out to win the war--not kill or jail all of the enemy who have shot at us or bombed us. Amnesty that helps win the war is perfectly justified.
We didn't try the enemy after our international wars or even our Revolution or Civil War. To insist on punishing all Iraqis who have fought us confuses war with peacetime crimes. And this confusion is being fanned by some who otherwise sensibly understand we are at war.
This is not rewarding the enemy. This is what winning looks like.
But what might make this more acceptable to critics back home might be an amnesty that covers all Coalition troops who might have violated laws of war as well as certain Iraqis who fought us. Yes, a lot more Iraqi enemy will get this amnesty than American or British military personnel, but it would end our self-flogging as well. Our people charged may very well be guilty (and some are convicted already), but they are in many cases guilty because unlike past wars, with our surveillance systems we catch troops that would have gotten away with crimes in past wars. And they committed isolated crimes in an environment where the enemy dresses like civilians and hides among them. This does not excuse the crimes but it should provide some understanding of the stresses and difficulties.
This makes sense in so many ways that I find it difficult not to imagine that my speculation is what is going on.
UPDATE: The Iraqi prime minister has presented a formal plan to end the fighting:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has presented a national reconciliation plan to parliament aimed at stemming sectarian tensions and violence.
The 24-point plan offers an amnesty to some insurgents, but not those from groups who have targeted civilians.
It outlines plans to disarm militias and beef up Iraqi security forces ahead of a takeover from coalition forces.
Targeting civilians is, as I suspected, a term to indicate the foreign-led jihadis. The article quotes Jim Muir, who has covered the Middle East for a long time, but who is simply confused when he complains:
The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says there are concerns that Mr Maliki's plan will not work as it does not seek reconciliation with those at the heart of the insurgency - the radical Islamists, many of them foreigners, who want Iraq to be the centre of a new Islamic empire.
These thugs do not seek reconciliation nor can there be reconciliation with them. For these thugs who behead their victims, there can only be their pursuit and death. Hopefully with the aid of the Iraqi Sunnis in a full-hearted effort to drive out the invaders.
