Amnesty

My new pet issue, that allowing Iraqi warfighters (not terrorists) back into society over there is a completely logical thing to do, has found a supporter over at the National Review's Corner blog. He or she writes:

In the same way, if we capture Iraqis who are battling our troops they should be taken to Guantanamo so as to render them out of commission for the duration of hostilities, but I can't see why anyone would object to the Iraqi government supported by us giving amnesty to such people on condition that they not engage in warfare against the established order in the future. Attacks against our troops, even sneaky attacks, are not the same thing as wanton attacks against noncombatant civilians.

Both parties are turning this into a jingoistic political football and they're both wrong. Another post mentions the strategic benefits of this amnesty offer:

An amnesty proposal which focuses on dividing the opposition is a good idea. If you target the locals and give them a way to end their involvement with the insurgents, then you create a divide even if no one takes advantage of it. It creates a sense of doubt between the locals and the foreigners. If any of the locals lay down their arms they will also bring in a treasure trove of intel. They may or may not reveal the location of safe house or weapons cashes, but the fact that they might know and might talk means that those locations are compromised. The insurgency is much like the mob. It requires secrecy. It operates in the shadows. If a mobster turns states evidence and brings down a mob family, would granting him immunity desecrate the graves of fallen law enforcement?

If nothing else, this should bolster my purple cred.