Iraqis Discuss Withdrawal Timetable

***Keep scrolling for updates***

I was just getting ready to comment on a Washington Post headline in this morning's online version of the paper that read "Iraqi Leaders Call For Pullout," only to mention that the actual article reads "Iraqi Leaders Call For Pullout Timetable" - obviously, two very different things. But the editors have just changed the headline to read "Iraqi Leaders Call For Withdrawal Timetable," which gives a much more accurate first-glance impression of the meeting that took place yesterday in Cairo.

UPDATE (10:14): I also want to mention that it seems the Iraqi people are taking this war more seriously than we are. A recent poll suggests that Americans are much more pessimistic than ever about a positive outcome in Iraq, with over 60 percent believing that democracy and stability will never come to Iraq.

Though yesterday's meeting at the Arab League suggests that Iraqis are divided over the timing of U.S. withdrawal from the country, as recently as this past summer a majority of Iraqis were concerned about an immediate U.S. withdrawal. However, almost all Iraqis agree that U.S. forces will need to leave the country in order for Iraq to operate as a sovereign nation. But despite the fact that there is still much tension between Sunnis and Shi'ites, some leaders see light at the end of the tunnel. According to VOANews.com:

The main demand of Sunni Arabs is for the announcement of a date for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq. Shi'ites and Kurds, who were long oppressed by Saddam and his ruling Baath Party, are demanding that Baath Party members be excluded from Iraqi society. Most Baath Party members were Sunni Arabs and many now stand accused of actively supporting the country's insurgency.

A Kurdish professor at the University of Baghdad, Abdul Jabbar Ahmad, says the key to reconciliation may lie with the country's Shi'ite Muslims, who dominate the current interim government and are expected to hold a majority in the next government.

"If the Iraqi government negotiates with the resistance, with the support of the U.S.A., I think stability will happen in Iraq. But if we are going to treat all of them as terrorists, I think whether the U.S. stays or withdraws from Iraq, the situation will be a mess," he said.

On Sunday, Iraq's Kurdish interim president, Jalal Talabani, said that he was willing to open a dialogue with former Baath Party members. But he ruled out including any member in the talks who is still actively supporting the insurgency.

According to the AP, yesterday's meeting concluded with Arab leaders drawing a distinction between "legitimate resistance" and terrorism, and calling for "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."

Though it's uncertain how such a communique will be received by the White House and American military commanders, such demands with regard to raids and arrests, which could severely inhibit our troops' prosecution of the enemy, at the very least indicate that Iraqis seem to be committed to a rule of law, however premature such demands could turn out to be.

One thing appears to be certain, however: Iraqi leaders seems to be as concerned with taking control of their country as we are with getting our guys back home. Regardless of our views of the war from the beginning, calls for an immediate withdrawal are unwise, as even Sunnis and Shi'ites agree that a specific date for U.S. withdrawal is less important than a well-timed departure.

UPDATE (2:42): NRO's Andrew Stuttaford:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance. The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

My emphasis added, and if the AP has understood this communique correctly my reaction is unprintable.

UPDATE (5:50): Okay, I've been trying all day to get back to this business of the Arab League drawing a distinction between "legitimate resistance" and terrorism, which is why I at least posted Andrew Stuttaford's reaction above. Mine was pretty much the same when I first read the article this morning, but I admit I wasn't quite sure how to take it.

Are Iraqi and other Arab leaders going to encourage those who are "legitimately resisting" to slap on a uniform? If not, they're still terrorists. Are they going to demand that they carry their weapons in full view of U.S. and allied forces, and stop hiding in mosques and among the civilian population? If not, they're still terrorists, and they should be treated as such.

So far as I know, Saddam's Republican Guard had a legitimate right to engage coalition troops because they differentiated themselves from everyday civilians. "Insurgents" who do not openly announce their opposition via the aforementioned means are not legitimate soldiers, do not deserve to be treated as such, and deserve no provisions under the Geneva Conventions.

I hope this signifies that Iraqi leaders and their counterparts will not accept terrorist activity in Iraq. But if this was a cheap stunt intended to greenlight terrorist attacks, or nothing more than a ploy to keep American forces guessing at the enemy, the Bush administration should come up with a few choice suggestions as to where these guys can shove their communique.