http://www.loyolagreyhound.com/media/paper665/news/2006/01/31/Opinion/Policy.On.Terrorist.Negotiations.Does.More.Harm.Than.Good-1544665.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.loyolagreyhound.com
I dispair. This is from my alma mater and the thinking deployed here is troubling at best:
Policy on terrorist negotiations does more harm than good
By: Jay Bartlett
Issue date: 1/31/06 Section: Opinion
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 1
Last week, Osama bin Laden released an audiotape in which he, in between his usual threats and admonishments, offered a truce. While the thought of coming to an agreement with such a deranged man may seem wholly preposterous, the notion should not be dismissed without the slightest bit of thought.
[i]Yes, actually, it should. When your enemy is calling for a truce, it means he's losing, badly. You pile on until he surrenders. The Germans tried putting out the "truce" feelers in the last days of the war but we ignored them and went on to fight some of the bloodiest, costliest battles of the war.[/i]
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a strong phrase, sending an unambiguous statement to our enemies that we will not be made to acquiesce to demands due to the specter of their violence.
However, there will be a point in time when it will be decided to end hostilities in this war on terror.
When or how this point will be reached, I cannot tell you. But killing all the terrorists or extending United States' law all over the world will not be the cause, because neither is ever going to happen. It will necessarily be some point short of "total victory," because such success is impossible. There will always be people in the world who wish to do America harm.
[i]Well, I can tell you. It will end when the Middle East does not broadly support the murder of Jews and Crusaders and they stop blowing people and things up. When they are so utterly defeated they have no choice but to begin anew and look at where they went wrong. See also; Japan, Imperial.[/i]
One, it is understood that we cannot kill them all. A rational person, one who wants to live in a peaceful world, will ask, "Why not now?" If history teaches us anything, it is that violence always begets violence. The British failed to end strife in Northern Ireland by violently putting down an Irish uprising. Another IRA bombing was always the true result, which of course just led to more force from the British, and so on.
[i]Here we go with that "cycle of violence" crap. No, you can't kill them all. You can, however kill enough of them so the rest think twice about trying to blow us up. You can destroy their operational capicity. Violence does NOT always beget violence. Again, Imperial Japan was the most ferverent fanatical army of the modern age and they are now a peacable nation. One without an army. Northern Ireland and the middle east are not analagous I'll explain why below[/i]
Ask any Israeli or Palestinian.They've been fighting for generations, yet there has never been any punch thrown that did not result in a counterpunch. Revenge is a natural human desire, but it never has and never will be the final answer in a struggle, unless one side is completely destroyed.
[i]Our mushy headed author fails to realize the difference between the Palestinians and the IRA. The IRA has limited objectives. They do not want to kill every last Brit (or Protestant for that matter) or drive them to the see with gunfire at their backs. Rather, they want to be integrated with the Republic of Ireland. The Palestianians (read: Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah) want to kill every last Jew and Crusader in the Middle East and finally, the world. Those that do not submit will die or live as second class citizens under sharia.[/i]
Vengeance may indeed be a worthy goal at times. When a large group of people, let alone a population of 300 million, calls for blood, its leadership is not necessarily ill advised to give in to their shouting, lest the entire social order dissolve into chaos.
[i]We are not looking for vengance but justice. And security.[/i]
But usually, and certainly in cases where the avengers can never have any hope of fully wiping out their enemies, such retributory violence must be moderated. Proportional retaliation does well to serve as punishment and deterrence against further aggression, but then the party that was originally wronged must be willing to end hostilities amicably, no matter how unwarranted and incredibly malicious the initial act of treachery. If not, the end result will assuredly be a counter-counterpunch, setting off the endless cycle that defines violence.
[i]We are magnamamous in victory. Always have, always will be. Both Afghanistan and Iraq prove it.[/i]
Truly, what is the cost of vengeance? How much do we really want to pay to exact revenge? 2,000 lives? How about 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000? At what point does our desire for "justice" become self-defeating?
[i]Does this guy think there's some sort of My Lai/Rape of Nanking going on? What planet is he living on?[/i]
You could say that standing up for what's right and for the idea of America is worth dying for. Surely, the brave men and women who throughout the years have given their lives to protect and defend their country and our right to be free (and my right to express my views) have not done so in vain.
[i]"You could say" what the hell kind of half-assed mealy mouthed weasel words are those? Is it true or not. Pick one.[/i]
But it is important to remember that every war has ended with a cessation of hostilities. Soldiers have not sacrificed themselves to prove an ideological point. They've done so to protect their nation and give their surviving countrymen the opportunity to live a life free from whatever evil they helped to stop in its tracks.
[i]No, dumbass, wars end with victories or defeats. The Korean War isn't over for exactly that reason. We have a "cessation of hostilities" there but no treaty. It hasn't ended.[/i]
Those courageous souls fought and died so we would not have to; so we could have it better. Would it really be honoring their memory to go out and sacrifice ourselves and our way of life in the name of vengeance? Is it honestly nobler to put more young men and women in the line of fire to show our devotion to the idea of retaliatory justice, than it is to work for a more peaceful solution?
[i]Does this guy really think we're still over there looking for vengance? Is he that simplistic? I fear so.[/i]
Am I honestly suggesting we reach out and try to make peace with Osama bin Laden? Absolutely not. There is just no feasible way we could be in a situation to trust his word: if we cannot find him, then there is simply no way to make him answer for not honoring his end of the bargain.
[i]So, let me get this straight. Your opposed to a peace treaty because we can't be sure he'd live up to it? Not because he's a psychopathic murderer, just that he's a liar. Great. Good to know[/i]
That being said, we should all begin to bring ourselves to the mindset that we might have to negotiate with the terrorists. In a world where a terrorist organization can be legitimately elected to genuine governmental power, as is the case with the Palestinian group Hamas and, for that matter, the IRA's political wing Sinn Fein, "terrorists" are sometimes the true voice of the people. We have to be willing to deal with these people, and if sooner rather than later means saving lives, then sooner it must be.
[i]Now you've undermined your entire position by saying we SHOULD negotiate with terrorists because it is going to save lives. This guy is so soft-headed and uniformed, he doesn't realize the British didn't negotiate with the IRA/Sinn Fein until they destroyed their arms and renounced violence. That's the difference. If Hamas were to stand down and submit their arms caches to inspection and securing, Israel and the US would meet with them. Hell, we met with Arafat dozens of times over the years and he was actively supporting terror and everyone knew it. [/i]
Perhaps if we work to engage terrorists in discourse and diplomacy, it will be possible to end the carnage. Even if they won't be convinced of our democratic ideals, it's possible they will at least halt the killing, as evidenced by the encouraging developments in Northern Ireland. This task will not be simple by any stretch of the imagination, and undoubtedly there will be setbacks. But isn't it worth trying to stop the endless cycle of violence before too many more lives, American and otherwise, are cut short?
[i]Won't someone please, think of the children! Ugh. Give me a break and give this guy a 15 minute primer on terrorism and global politics. [/i]
I dispair. This is from my alma mater and the thinking deployed here is troubling at best:
Policy on terrorist negotiations does more harm than good
By: Jay Bartlett
Issue date: 1/31/06 Section: Opinion
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 1
Last week, Osama bin Laden released an audiotape in which he, in between his usual threats and admonishments, offered a truce. While the thought of coming to an agreement with such a deranged man may seem wholly preposterous, the notion should not be dismissed without the slightest bit of thought.
[i]Yes, actually, it should. When your enemy is calling for a truce, it means he's losing, badly. You pile on until he surrenders. The Germans tried putting out the "truce" feelers in the last days of the war but we ignored them and went on to fight some of the bloodiest, costliest battles of the war.[/i]
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a strong phrase, sending an unambiguous statement to our enemies that we will not be made to acquiesce to demands due to the specter of their violence.
However, there will be a point in time when it will be decided to end hostilities in this war on terror.
When or how this point will be reached, I cannot tell you. But killing all the terrorists or extending United States' law all over the world will not be the cause, because neither is ever going to happen. It will necessarily be some point short of "total victory," because such success is impossible. There will always be people in the world who wish to do America harm.
[i]Well, I can tell you. It will end when the Middle East does not broadly support the murder of Jews and Crusaders and they stop blowing people and things up. When they are so utterly defeated they have no choice but to begin anew and look at where they went wrong. See also; Japan, Imperial.[/i]
One, it is understood that we cannot kill them all. A rational person, one who wants to live in a peaceful world, will ask, "Why not now?" If history teaches us anything, it is that violence always begets violence. The British failed to end strife in Northern Ireland by violently putting down an Irish uprising. Another IRA bombing was always the true result, which of course just led to more force from the British, and so on.
[i]Here we go with that "cycle of violence" crap. No, you can't kill them all. You can, however kill enough of them so the rest think twice about trying to blow us up. You can destroy their operational capicity. Violence does NOT always beget violence. Again, Imperial Japan was the most ferverent fanatical army of the modern age and they are now a peacable nation. One without an army. Northern Ireland and the middle east are not analagous I'll explain why below[/i]
Ask any Israeli or Palestinian.They've been fighting for generations, yet there has never been any punch thrown that did not result in a counterpunch. Revenge is a natural human desire, but it never has and never will be the final answer in a struggle, unless one side is completely destroyed.
[i]Our mushy headed author fails to realize the difference between the Palestinians and the IRA. The IRA has limited objectives. They do not want to kill every last Brit (or Protestant for that matter) or drive them to the see with gunfire at their backs. Rather, they want to be integrated with the Republic of Ireland. The Palestianians (read: Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah) want to kill every last Jew and Crusader in the Middle East and finally, the world. Those that do not submit will die or live as second class citizens under sharia.[/i]
Vengeance may indeed be a worthy goal at times. When a large group of people, let alone a population of 300 million, calls for blood, its leadership is not necessarily ill advised to give in to their shouting, lest the entire social order dissolve into chaos.
[i]We are not looking for vengance but justice. And security.[/i]
But usually, and certainly in cases where the avengers can never have any hope of fully wiping out their enemies, such retributory violence must be moderated. Proportional retaliation does well to serve as punishment and deterrence against further aggression, but then the party that was originally wronged must be willing to end hostilities amicably, no matter how unwarranted and incredibly malicious the initial act of treachery. If not, the end result will assuredly be a counter-counterpunch, setting off the endless cycle that defines violence.
[i]We are magnamamous in victory. Always have, always will be. Both Afghanistan and Iraq prove it.[/i]
Truly, what is the cost of vengeance? How much do we really want to pay to exact revenge? 2,000 lives? How about 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000? At what point does our desire for "justice" become self-defeating?
[i]Does this guy think there's some sort of My Lai/Rape of Nanking going on? What planet is he living on?[/i]
You could say that standing up for what's right and for the idea of America is worth dying for. Surely, the brave men and women who throughout the years have given their lives to protect and defend their country and our right to be free (and my right to express my views) have not done so in vain.
[i]"You could say" what the hell kind of half-assed mealy mouthed weasel words are those? Is it true or not. Pick one.[/i]
But it is important to remember that every war has ended with a cessation of hostilities. Soldiers have not sacrificed themselves to prove an ideological point. They've done so to protect their nation and give their surviving countrymen the opportunity to live a life free from whatever evil they helped to stop in its tracks.
[i]No, dumbass, wars end with victories or defeats. The Korean War isn't over for exactly that reason. We have a "cessation of hostilities" there but no treaty. It hasn't ended.[/i]
Those courageous souls fought and died so we would not have to; so we could have it better. Would it really be honoring their memory to go out and sacrifice ourselves and our way of life in the name of vengeance? Is it honestly nobler to put more young men and women in the line of fire to show our devotion to the idea of retaliatory justice, than it is to work for a more peaceful solution?
[i]Does this guy really think we're still over there looking for vengance? Is he that simplistic? I fear so.[/i]
Am I honestly suggesting we reach out and try to make peace with Osama bin Laden? Absolutely not. There is just no feasible way we could be in a situation to trust his word: if we cannot find him, then there is simply no way to make him answer for not honoring his end of the bargain.
[i]So, let me get this straight. Your opposed to a peace treaty because we can't be sure he'd live up to it? Not because he's a psychopathic murderer, just that he's a liar. Great. Good to know[/i]
That being said, we should all begin to bring ourselves to the mindset that we might have to negotiate with the terrorists. In a world where a terrorist organization can be legitimately elected to genuine governmental power, as is the case with the Palestinian group Hamas and, for that matter, the IRA's political wing Sinn Fein, "terrorists" are sometimes the true voice of the people. We have to be willing to deal with these people, and if sooner rather than later means saving lives, then sooner it must be.
[i]Now you've undermined your entire position by saying we SHOULD negotiate with terrorists because it is going to save lives. This guy is so soft-headed and uniformed, he doesn't realize the British didn't negotiate with the IRA/Sinn Fein until they destroyed their arms and renounced violence. That's the difference. If Hamas were to stand down and submit their arms caches to inspection and securing, Israel and the US would meet with them. Hell, we met with Arafat dozens of times over the years and he was actively supporting terror and everyone knew it. [/i]
Perhaps if we work to engage terrorists in discourse and diplomacy, it will be possible to end the carnage. Even if they won't be convinced of our democratic ideals, it's possible they will at least halt the killing, as evidenced by the encouraging developments in Northern Ireland. This task will not be simple by any stretch of the imagination, and undoubtedly there will be setbacks. But isn't it worth trying to stop the endless cycle of violence before too many more lives, American and otherwise, are cut short?
[i]Won't someone please, think of the children! Ugh. Give me a break and give this guy a 15 minute primer on terrorism and global politics. [/i]
Comments