Talking to Terrorists

[Ian McColgin]

Today’s Globe has an excellent essay on a favorite taboo - negotiating or at least talking with terrorists. The further to the right one is, the more valuable this article is.

See it at:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/12/12/talk_to_terrorists/

G’luck

[BrianW]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

The further to the right one is, the more valuable this article is.

Do you consider the US military, and it's personnel "right leaning"?

[Ian McColgin]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

Most say they are. However, as you who have read the article already know, the people driving the new approach in talking to terrorists are some tough front line marine officers who are not especially goo-goo liberal. So, seems to me that the question implies a disinclination to read the article. Pity. Hope I'm wrong.

[BrianW]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

Oh I read the article, but thanks to your dig in the original post, I found myself looking at who was advocating talking, and who wasn't.

It is clear from the article that the military, who we agree is "right leaning", supports the idea. What's not clear, except for one dead President, is who doesn't.

So why you felt the need to insult people who are "further to the right" is beyond me. It drives a wedge straight down party lines from the start. Not a good way to change minds and hearts.

[skuthorp]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

The breakthrough usually comes when the terrorists begin to think of themselves as politicians, Jomo Kenyatta was a perfect illustration. You can't defeat an idea, political or religious by military means, inevitably any solution, no matter how unsatisfactory, has to be a negotiated one. And that applies in spades when you are fighting in someone elses country. As Americans put yourselves in the same situation. Would you just roll over if you were the one invaded?

[Ian McColgin]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

The tough talk is belied by action and, as the article points out, even Reagan negotiated with terrorists. The don't negotiate rhetoric is more heated from the right than from the left, but almost no politicians make statements like the one that got such heated denunciation from the right as Obama's remark. There is an argument, the Kissinger-Nixon analogy, that it's easier for a precieved hawk to open negotiations and that certainly alligns with the newly emerging military thinking. And that's why those of the right who still think we should never negotiate need to read this.

[S.V. Airlie]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

If one is dealing with only one okay. I can see it but there seem to be too many factions to deal with.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

The breakthrough usually comes when the terrorists begin to think of themselves as politicians, Jomo Kenyatta was a perfect illustration. You can't defeat an idea, political or religious by military means, inevitably any solution, no matter how unsatisfactory, has to be a negotiated one. And that applies in spades when you are fighting in someone elses country. As Americans put yourselves in the same situation. Would you just roll over if you were the one invaded?

Absolutely correct. There needs to be dialogue with the political voice of the disaffected group or there will be no end to the violence. It took 30 years for everyone to be ready in Northern Ireland, but a political solution was found through discussion with the representatives of the terrorists. Contrast that with the prognosis for Israel, where an unwillingness to talk is growing the problem.

[S.V. Airlie]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

If you choose say one of the factions in Palistine to discuss say a homeland what do you think the other factions in Palistine not included in negotiations will react?

[Allison]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

So now they are thinking about talking to the Taliban, Karzai has been doing it for a while.
pity they didn't take up the offer to talk before the war started!1
when the US demanded that they hand over Osama, they asked to see some proof and offered repeatedly to send him to a neutral country to be judged on the evidence. Whether or not they would have actually done it or not is a moot point, we will never know now.
Of course W and Cheney refused to talk to them and just kept threatening war because that's what they wanted all along and the rest is history.
So now we come full circle, thousands dead, trillions spent, thousands of new enemies made and Osama is still free.

But now they want to talk!

[S.V. Airlie]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

In theory, if you feel that the Talliban is the only group on the block fine. But I have a feeling that they ruled the country with an iron fist. Why because there were various opposing factions in Afhganistan. Now consequently we would have to deal with all parties not just one. There are 2 major parties in Palistine. Official parties that is. Which one would you negotiate with. What others would you have to negotiate with that are not immediately on the radar...

[Ian McColgin]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

Had kmancini read the article with normal comprehension, he or she would know that the current manual on talking to terrorists is being written by military commanders on the front lines, not non-enlisted fellows writing from domestic comfort. Kmancini has been around long enough that he or she should understand the difference between supporting women in the often painful choise of whether to complete a pregnancy or abort, and to know that I am so proudly American that I'm confident we can do better and willing to try, rather than be unamerican and sit back doing nothing.

[Paul Pless]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

The further to the right one is, the more valuable this article is.

why?

[Gerarddm]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

Contrast that with the prognosis for Israel, where an unwillingness to talk is growing the problem.

I am so sick of both the Israelis and Palestinians; right now more pissed at Bibi. Pretty soon he'll earn ( if he hasn't already ) Abba Eban's old sobriquet about Yassir Arafat: he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Ian McColgin]

Re: Talking to Terrorists

Perhaps my previous answers to why those further right will benefit more from this essay were not clear enough. As a stereotype based on their leaders' public utterances and ralleying calls, the right is firmly against negotiating with terrorists. This was most fameously uttered by Reagan even as he arranged for weapons for Iran that 'wound up' in terrorist hands aimed at Americans. So sure, not all negotiation is well advised or even in good faith. But it's our generally right leaning military that's writing the book on talking to terrorists just now. Rather like how police hostage negotiators advanced how we deal the often psycho criminals. "Liberals" are not automatically sympathetic to or competant at negotiating with terrorists but it's the neopopulist American right that has the biggest emotional barrior to such negotiation and provides most of the political power that makes openly talking about it anathema for elected politicians. So, the further to the right one is, the more important this read can be.