[T]he amnesty plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, according to a top Iraqi adviser. The adviser characterizes those attacks as "a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland." "These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe," the adviser said. "We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will be pardoned."

PM Maliki himself said,

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."

It's certainly no coincidence that Maliki's announcement coincided with the opening of a widespread and vigorous offensive against insurgents, conducted by American and Iraqi forces. (It does make me uneasy, though, to think some Iraqi insurgents may now think they can off an American or three in coming days and get off scot free by then applying for amnesty. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!) As for the devil of the details: it's yet to be stated how an amnesty applicant can prove he attacked only Americans, or whether a simple declaration will suffice. The amnesty proposal specifically does not cover criminal activity and explicitly does not include anyone who killed or wounded any Iraqi, whether civilian or not. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to Maliki, said,

"The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation, and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty, but not a sort of unconditional amnesty," Kadhimi said in a telephone interview. "We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will be pardoned." The reconciliation effort pioneered by South Africa after the collapse of apartheid might be a model, Kadhimi said. "One way was to admit what you have done and you will be forgiven, and maybe parts of this can be considered. Because once we see people coming forward to admit what they have done, and it's within the areas the government has the right to pardon, it could happen."

Even eventual pardon of Iraqi-killers was not ruled out by al-Kadhimi, who indicated that such pardons would need to include a means by which families of the slain could receive compensation in some way.

When assessing the amnesty proposal, we need to keep the main thing the main thing, however emotionally unpleasant that may sometimes be. And the main thing is ending the insurgency, but not necessarily by killing all the insurgents, so that a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq may emerge.

A broad-based but targeted amnesty to reunify Iraqis and isolate the extremists may be the last chance to save the country from breaking up into a series of warring states run by militias. An amnesty is indispensable, even if it may not be enough.

As the FT points out, the interim government of Iyad Allawi floated this kind of proposal two years ago, but the Bush administration knocked it down. Since then, Sunni and Shia militias and warlords have waxed in power. "[T]he essential nature of the conflict has changed from a guerrilla war against the US-led occupation to a sectarian war between the winners and losers in the new order ... ." Captain Ed says of the amnesty proposal,

This sounds appalling, but it probably reflects the reality of Iraq today, and will be the only realistic way to bring an end to the infighting. We can demand that Mailiki rescind the offer, but a refusal would only burnish his credentials as an independent leader. In fact, we should protest to give him that chance. I would like nothing more that to see the cowards hand from the nearest gallows, but insisting on that point would likely make almost everyone ineligible for the amnesty. Maliki has already narrowed down eligibility to those who have not attacked civilians, which will prove problematic enough to enforce. At some point, Iraq needs a national reconciliation if it is to avoid a civil war. The Shi'a and Kurds will have to find ways to connect to the Sunni minority on a rational political basis, and the best way to get to that stage is to combine a crackdown on insurgents and a ban on militias with a general amnesty for those who wish to return home and live normal lives. Their motivation has not been radical Islam in most cases but sectarian hatreds and a reaction to occupation. If we want to stabilize Iraq, we will probably need to bend on this concern, as hard as it will be, in order to hasten that reconciliation and help the Iraqis move farther away from politics at gunpoint.

Quite so. I would also suggest that amnesty objectors in Congress or elsewhere might consider some history. Harper's Weekly reported on May 13, 1865:

By his proclamation of the 8th of December, 1863, President LINCOLN granted a full pardon —with certain exceptions which we will presently state—to all who had been in rebellion, with a full restoration of all rights of property except in slaves and in cases where the rights of third parties had intervened, and upon condition of taking and subscribing and keeping in-violate an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the Union under it, and to abide faithfully by all the laws of Congress, and by the proclamations of the President in regard to slaves, so far as they are not repealed or declared void by the Supreme Court.

Exceptions to this amnesty were those who held Confederate government posts, served as the CSA's diplomats and any CSA general officer or CSA navy lieutenant or above, and some other exceptions. But Confederate soldiers up to colonels were offered amnesty if only they swore allegiance to the US Constitution and pledged not take up arms against the Union again. Furthermore,

On April 9th 1865, when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, the men and officers were "allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." This stipulation allowed Confederate soldiers to return to their homes without the threat of trials for treason.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson provided for amnesty and the return of property to those who would take an oath of allegiance. However, former Confederate government officials with the rank of colonel and above from the Confederate army or lieutenant and above from the Confederate navy, and people owning more than $20,000 worth of property had to apply for individual pardons. Though it was difficult for ex-Confederates to ask for a pardon for something they did not believe had been wrong, thousands did ask for and receive amnesty from President Johnson.

On Christmas Day 1865, Johnson granted an unconditional pardon to all Civil War participants except high-ranking military and civil officials. In May 1872 the Congressional Amnesty Act gave the right to hold office again to almost all Southern leaders who had been excluded from public office by the 14th Amendment.

Fascinating Fact: President Johnson was so liberal in granting pardons that the Radical Republicans believed he was giving away the Northern victory.

I'll give the last word to Rick Moran:

I don’t like it any more than you do.

The prospect of granting a limited amnesty in Iraq – especially to those Iraqis who participated in attacks on Americans – sticks in my craw. I believe that amnesty would cheapen the sacrifice made by the more than 2,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq and would be a slap in the face to the families of the fallen.

But all things considered, it may be the price of a full, unqualified victory in Iraq – a stable democratic government that promises full political participation for all Iraqis and that would be an example to follow for the rest of the autocratic Middle East.

This was the goal when we initiated the overthrow of Saddam. And achieving that goal would hearten democrats in the entire Muslim world while striking a huge blow at al Qaeda and their brothers in terror across the Middle East.

Yes, We have to keep the main thing the main thing, however bitter that may be.

Cross-posted at Donald Sensing.com

Update: I was talking with a former Marine with combat service in Iraq who told me that his fallen compatriots died for Americans, not Iraqis. "If amnesty makes America more quickly secure then it honors their sacrifice because that's what they died trying to accomplish."