...to take advantage of rifts in the insurgency, particularly between local groups, whose main goal is to expel American forces, and the more radical groups, like Al Qaeda, which have alienated many Iraqis by the mass killing of Iraqi civilians....The most recent election seems to make a difference to some groups but not others. The article contains this mystifying statement from an unnamed diplomat:
American and Iraqi officials regard the strife among the guerrillas as presenting an especially promising opportunity, in large part because of the large turnout of Sunni voters in the election. In many cities, insurgents cooperated with the election by largely holding their fire, while Al Qaeda warned of reprisals. In at least one city, Ramadi, insurgents provided security at some polling centers.
"According to Islamic doctrine, as well as democratic principles, there cannot be a legitimate resistance against a legitimate government... If we could reach an understanding with each other, meaning the resistance, as they call it, and the coalition, then they will in turn take care of Zarqawi and the terrorists."I don't see how it can be assumed that if something is Islamic doctrine, the insurgents will follow it. And if that were the case, why wouldn't both groups be bound by the doctrine? And aren't they already violating doctrine (targeting children, for example)? Aren't the insurgents motivated by the loss of political power that they had in Iraq under Saddam? I thought al Qaeda was more oriented toward religious arguments than the Iraqi insurgents. In any event, I hope these talks are effective, for whatever reason.