Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I understand your premise, but surely the point of any parley is to find out if the enemy's position is negotiable on the killing part?
Well yes, but in the case I am referring to Al Sadr, his position was clear already.

Use of the white flag or truce is time-honoured precisely because it gives a chance for dialogue and perhaps clarification of misunderstanding. It is fairly rare that a group or individual is totally and unutterably dedicated to the elimination of an opponent in all circumstances - and if the case, I would argue such a zealot is unlikely to participate in any talks aimed at compromise, so would not parley.
I agree completely, As I said I dont suggest it as a doctrine but rather a useful tool in certain circumstances.


In this case, whilst you seem to believe that he is dedicated solely to killing US forces, al-Sadr is far more concerned at gaining power in Iraq than eradicating Americans per se. He sees the US withdrawal and defeat as a means to that end, but I'm sure he would be open to suggestions on how that withdrawal might be managed.
Well yes, we agree that his overall goal is to have U.S. forces withdrawn but at the time referenced in the article
(from the article) The attempted assassination or abduction took place two-and-a-half years ago in August 2004 when Mr Sadr and his Mehdi Army militiamen were besieged by US Marines in Najaf, south of Baghdad.
he was attempting to kill U.S. forces.


To enter into parley with the intention of using the process to eliminate a rival is both unethical and short-sighted.
This is where we disagree, respectfully my point is best illistrated by the quote from the article above. He was attempting to kill U.S. soldiers (at the time) and while its less the honorable to lure him by those means, the point of war is to kill the enemy, particularly one that is devout in his belief that your removal is paramount to his exsistence.


If al-Sadr had been killed, how many more - and probably more radicalised - strongmen would have taken his place?
Now we are moving beyond the scope of the original post, in the context of what was happening on the ground then, I dont know 25-30? And if they were attempting to kill americans I would expect that we would try and kill them first.


How when the time comes (and it approaches with the inevitability of the setting sun) do you negotiate dignified withdrawal with men who now refuse to meet with your assassins?
You dont, as a victor you instruct the terms you dont ask. Thats part of the problem with current U.S. involvement in Iraq, we negotiate far to much, and we have allowed a circumstance via the turn over a few years ago where we are basically a foreign police force.

thats a whole other thread though mate