While drinking and smoking I was thinking about peace negotiations with extremists/terrorists. Specifically Islamic terrorists. Such as the current peace talks between President Ghani’s Afghanistan and the Taliban.
Basically I just wanted to float the possibility that if an extremist group were to stage an attack, what would the result of offering direct talks in lieu of full-on military combat be? If the extremist group were to accept these talks would you, personally, accept this instead of military conflict, regardless of if there is punishment for the attack(s)?
This is a completely hypothetical question regarding negotiating with extremists. All opinions are valid.
You can’t negotiate with a radical any more than you can talk sense to a psychotic. That’s what makes them radicals and extremists in the first place.
That doesn’t mean all negotiation is useless, though. Often, the True Believers are useful idiots working for smarter people with a more nuanced view of things. Those people are frequently (but not always) more interested in money and power than ideology, and they can be bargained with. Sometimes.
What would you talk about? Generally speaking, the goal of Islamic extremists is to implement a society which, by most standards, shows a wanton disregard for human rights, subjugating women and anyone who doesn’t adhere to their particular interpretation of islam. If you’re going to negotiate with them, presumably that means you’re willing to concede something in the hopes that they will too.
So what will you concede? Are you willing to let them run part of the territory as they see fit? Are you willing to curtail the rights of women and/or infidels? Are you willing to implement the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy?
If you’re not willing to concede to any of their demands, then what would you negotiate about?
It depends, I suppose, on what we would be talking about. ISTM that the non-extremist side would have to have the option of military retaliation in reserve. Otherwise it isn’t so much direct talks as a negotiated surrender.
“Instead of” - sure. “In addition to” - not so much.
But punishing the terrorists is a secondary objective to putting a stop to their attacks.
Ideas developed “while drinking and smoking” seldom stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
If there is one thing I have learned since I have grown up to be an old fart, it is that some people will stop at nothing to get what they want. And that literally means “nothing.” They will steal, lie, renege on their promises, kill individuals or drag their countries into war if they decide they need to.
Negotiation is preferable to war. Negotiation with a Plan B is preferable to negotiation alone.
Maybe I’m a pie in the sky dreamer, but negotiation doesn’t have to mean “we” have to change. It could mean getting it through their heads that they will not get their way. They can change, or they can die. What we would be surrendering in the negotiation is killing as many of them as we can in the most efficient manner possible. (We could always fall back on that, though.)
It’s better not to kill them all, given the option. That way lies endless fighting, and people holding grudges for 1000 years, and nothing changing. Christianity went through the reformation and survived. Islam needs to do the same, because a caliphate will *never *happen, and the sooner they realize that the better the world will be. But that won’t be achieved by violence alone.
Bolding mine. Considering that many of these Islamic extremist groups use suicide bombers as one of their major tactics, I think they have already made up their mind on this.
It can be productive to talk with 'terrorists."
For example, Israel and the Palestinians have talked on several occasions.
Depending on your point of view, both sides might be considered “terrorists.”
But, talks only go so far. If the Palestinians say that they will only accept the complete elimination of Israel as a state, then well, there’s not much room for discussion.
Well, I’m hoping not all of them would choose death. Because then the only possible solution is killing them all.
If they all choose to die for their cause, I’m willing to oblige them. But it’s really not that great of a solution to the problem.
If one person decides not to blow themselves up, they’ll think he’s not with the program, and kill him. If two people decide not to blow themselves up, they’ll think they’re a couple a queers and kill the both of them. But if 50 people a day decide they don’t want to blow themselves up, well friends we got a movement. An Islamic Reformation anti-massacre movement.
Well, that’s why I’m saying negotiation needs to be tried. If not ALL of them feel that way, there is hope. Maybe it’s just the leaders that believe in the divine mandate, and they’re dragging everyone else along. Maybe you can convince the rank and file that it is their leaders that are wrong, and then they’ll follow you. Who knows. The ISIS types aren’t a monolithic block. They’re individuals, with individual motivations. Maybe some can be reached.