Can't Anyone Here Play This Game?

Today, as six more U.S. troops were killed in Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about a potential timetable for withdrawal of forces. Repeating what's become a mantra, he said, "This message would say to the terrorists: 'All you have to do is wait until that day when our troops leave and then you can start carrying out those attacks and just hold out.'" He said it today, he was saying it a year ago, and he'll be saying it a year from now.

This is fascinating as well as preposterous on several levels. First, note that this administration (and perhaps more distressingly, its media apologists and shills) continues to phase out the word "insurgents" in favor of "terrorists" at every opportunity. Not a lot of mystery about the choice of words there, eh? Any clear-thinking person needs to recognize this for what it is and reject it. If you think there is any possibility we'll be leaving Iraq at some point, what convinced you that we would withdraw when "terrorists" are involved? See how this is going to work?

And in terms of telling the insurgents "all you have to do is wait", exactly what does the following tell them? From the AP:

U.S. and Iraqi officials are considering difficult-to-swallow ideas — including amnesties for their enemies — as they look for ways to end the country’s rampant insurgency and isolate extremists wanting to start a civil war.

Negotiations have just begun between U.S. and Iraqi officials on drafting an amnesty policy, which would reach out to Iraqi militants fighting U.S. forces, say officials in both the Iraqi and American governments.

Let me get this straight. We're worried that setting a timetable for withdrawal would send a message of weakness. But we have no problem telling them exactly how desperate we are by openly considering an amnesty for those who've killed American troops or civilians (since obviously there's no practical way for an amnesty program to delineate between those who have done so and those who have not). As an aside, if the insurgency is in its "last throes" as Cheney just claimed, why we are considering an amnesty? Do we even need to ask that question?

And one more point. If what one of our senior military leaders on the ground in Iraq says is true, why are we tipping our weak hand by openly contemplating an amnesty?

A senior US military chief has admitted "good, honest" Iraqis are fighting American forces.

Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence".

In an interview with Gulf News, he said: "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could [want to fight us]."

Do we think that inside of every one of those "good, honest" Iraqis resisting an occupation is a peaceful, passive citizen just waiting for the chance to lay down his weapon in an amnesty? Are we that delusional?

It's difficult to characterize these contradictions, word games, simple-minded approaches, and confusion about the nature of what and whom we're fighting as anything less than extremely distressing.