Is there anything wrong with talking to terrorists?

Great Debates
21

There are two fundamentally different groups of terrorists. Those who have specific demands, and those who simply want to kill you.

Before you can even consider negotiating with al-Qaida, let’s start from the position that you are willing to give them everything they want. Now, tell me…

What are they?

If you can’t answer that question, there’s nothing to negotiate.

In the west, we’re unused to the concept of the enemy. It’s hard for us to believe that there are people in the world who simply want to kill us because of who we are. But history is full of examples of civilizations or cultures that just rise up against each other in a blood bath. The muslim world in general is not our enemy, but their most radical elements certainly are. How we respond to them now will in part set the tone for our future coexistence with the muslim world.

It has to be ultimately clear that we will not tolerate random killings of our citizens, and that it will be met with force. But at the same time, it is important that we retain the good will of the moderate muslim world by not being heavy-handed and unnecessarily destructive. Where that line is drawn is where the real debate is.

22

KC: The point is to never negotiate with a group that actively supports/engages in terrorism. […] The importance is to not give the appearance that the acts of terror are actually effecting change. […] We pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia under the auspices that we no longer needed to defend SA from Saddam and it just happened to be an issue that many jihadists had been championing.

But actually, the US troop withdrawal from Saudi Arabia has given the “appearance that the acts of terror are actually effecting change”, in the view of some radical Islamists. You can’t decide your course of action on the assumption that terrorists will be ideologically rational and will interpret your actions as you would prefer.

(For instance, IMO not enough attention has been paid to the hypothesis of Islamicists/anthropologists like William Beeman to the effect that the actions of terrorists may be as much a career pursuit as an ideological one. E.g., many of the Afghani jihadists started out as radical Islamist guerillas against the Soviet Union; when they finally pushed the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and got their desired radical Islamist government, they were still professional jihadists. That’s what they did; that’s how they saw themselves. To a guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail; to an out-of-work jihadist, what he needs is not a new line of work but a new jihad. So many of them turned to radical Islamist terrorism in the new Central Asian governments, and against the US. You can’t deal with that kind of unspoken personal motive on the basis of ideology.)

I’m totally with Tris on this one. You negotiate with people with grievances (and it’s smart to start doing it before some of them decide to get your attention with a bomb). You don’t negotiate with murderers. If you know somebody’s a murderer, you arrest him (or if there’s an actual state of war and he’s a legitimate target, you shoot him).

You negotiate with people with grievances even if some murderers claim to have the same grievances, and you don’t waste time worrying about whether your actions will appear to be “rewarding” terrorism or giving terrorist tactics “validity”.

Sam: In the west, we’re unused to the concept of “the enemy.”

?? Huh? Western culture has had an absolute love affair with the concept of “the enemy”, from the Christian-supremacist paranoia of the Crusades to medieval (and 19th-20th century) anti-semitism to anti-black racism. We are not just willing but eager to believe that “there are people in the world who simply want to kill us because of who we are.” Even when we don’t have any solid evidence of the existence of such people, we want to believe it so much that we simply make them up. (Some say that this is left over from the Manichaean-dualism influences on early Christianity, but I think that’s debateable.)

23

I agree with Kimstu — someone break her fall, please — with a caveat. Although I oppose the notion of a government negotiating with foreign states, I support the notion that you ought not to negotiate with murderers. Having forfeited all rights by their murder, they have nothing to negotiate with.

24

Negotiation with the SDLP (the legitimate republican entity in Northern Ireland) for three decades was ineffective. It was only when the actual murderers (ie. Sinn Fein) were negotiated with that the peace process made any real progress.

25

I certainly agree with your last statement; many radicals would interpret withdrawal from SA as a victory. I’m really addressing the tactical level terrorism like threatening an immediate, specific reprisal for not meeting a specific demand, ie. killing hostages unless prisoners are released, etc… When terrorism is used strategically there is often a legitmate grievance than can be addressed (as with the IRA or Palestinians), and if not, negotiation wouldn’t work anyway. In the case where there are legitimate grievances, I would address those grievances and roll back the reform process if/when terrorist attacks occur. This might pit those who are seeking to reform peacefully against those who seek reform through more radical measures.
Osama doesn’t have a legitimate grievance in wanting to destroy the infidels and will therefore not negotiate (and has said so).

26

"In the case of the former, if we’d always kept a strict policy of non-negotiation then the tactic would be abandoned. The problem is, we never have kept that policy strict. "

BullCaca.

27

Triskadecamus : “Or, put another way, those who have the least to loose can risk the most.”

If this is the case - and i see no reason why it wouldnt be, would the best way of dealing with the problem be shifting the balence a bit and give the terrorists more to lose?
By their very nature, terrorists have nothing to loose, but thier supporters may be more “rational”. If they see the beginnings of a new approach, would they not be inclined to say; “hangon a minute, someone wants to listen to our side - We may get something here”.
Bingo - they now have something to loose. This of course would be just a start -you’d have to come up with a plan aswell !( something we dont really have at the moment )

I also think that Mr Meat and Mr Stone have a good point. There are terrorists who just want to cause mayhem. I think it may be quite easy to distinguish who they are. These scum need a good shoeing.
However - other groups, who may be the vast majority of a state, may have just ended up with terrorist methods / wings because they were just sick of decades of being ignored. That doesnt mean they particularly approve of the methods, but its better than bending over and taking it. Now if you want to win the "war on terrorism ", then you may get a lot closer to your goal by only dealing with these issues. Surley everyone is a winner, no?

Furt: "To expand on this: If terrorist leader X makes a deal with the Great Satan, he will lose his credibility with many of the faithful. " I dont see why. If the terrorist’s supporters get (closer to ?) the goal they were after in the fist place -why would they be pissed at the people at the messy end ?

By the way - thats an interesting link, Furt. It was going really well (apart from the “all terrorists are Muslims” tone ). Untill…

Scenario:US invites all related terrorist groups to get together and come up with list of demands:

"Consider the only two responses that the Muslim terrorists can make in such circumstances.

First, they can reject the offer to negotiate their demands with the United States, in which case they will be announcing to the world that they have no genuine political demands to make, but are simply indulging in terrorism for the sake of terrorism. This may not be enough to disillusion the many apologists for terrorism in the West, but it certainly will stop them from attacking the United States for its failure to pursue a more conciliatory path.

Second, the various Muslim terrorist groups can accept the offer to negotiate, whereupon they will immediately fall into bickering over which group has the legitimate authority to speak for the entire Muslim world, not to mention which of their various demands should take priority over other demands, and which need to be included in the list of ten demands, and which should be left off this list.

The result of this bickering would almost certainly be an orgy of mutual slaughter – just the kind of thing that happens to gangs when they are trying to establish their dominance over each other. Each would be competing with the rest to be allowed to represent the Muslim world in its negotiations with the United States. "
Now, I think he has missed a trick here as he uses these 2 options as an argument AGAINST the idea! Both of them sound pretty good to me.

1st one leads to loss of support throughout the regon affected and the world as a whole, making bounties and human based intelegence more productive.

2nd one removes A) lots of shitty little groups, B)a bagload of terrorist leaders ( mutual slaughter among terrorist groups is a bad thing?) allowing a coherant dialogue to take place. If it all goes pear shaped then carry on as you are now. What have you lost?

Anyway why would that method be any worse than current “POLICY”. It may save quite a few lives.
sin

Appologies for typos in this and other posts - posting at work need quick typing !

28

Good argument. Care to expand?

29

KidC can you explain " Some groups use terror tactically (like the IRA), others use it strategically (like AQ). "

Whats the difference between tactically and strategically?

sin

30

Terrorism is tactical when employed to achieve a specific short-term objective. Terrorism is strategic when used as the primary method to achieve a long-term objective.

Take the case of the Palestinians: Depending on who you ask their main objective is either the destruction of Israel or the creation of a Palestinian state.

When a terrorist takes hostages and threatens to kill them unless prisoners are released, they are using terrorism tactically. They have specific demands and offer specific consequences. The terrorist’s short term objective is to free friends and allies of the jihad for use in accomplishing the greater goal: Destruction of Israel, etc…

When a terrorist blows him/herself up on an Israeli bus, they haven’t made specific demands nor have they achieved a specific objective towards their ultimate goal. They are hoping the general use of terror will bring Israel to it’s knees. That is strategic use of terror.

Al Qaeda is the ultimate employer of strategic terror because their goal is to destroy all the infidels and establish Muslim states across the globe. No negotiation will work with Osama and company. There is nothing to negotiate and he has specifically said that in his communiques.

31

Except that (as already mentioned) Bush has the authority to act as a representitive of the United States. Terrorists have no such authority.

This strikes me as incredibly naive. I do not believe that terrorists expect their demands to actually be met. I believe their objective is to bring attention to their cause and strike fear into the population so they apply political pressure to their leaders.

32

Some terrorists most certainly do. Because it has actually worked in the past. Terrorists have been released from prison. The Mujahadeen certainly got Russia to withdraw from Afghanistan. The IRA got what it wanted. When the hijackers of the Achille Lauro, who murdered quadrapalegic Leon Klinghoffer, were arrested in Europe, they were released and allowed to go home. The Beirut bombing got the U.S. marines out.

The difference with al-Qaida is that it has no such demands. There is simply nothing to negotiate, because bin Laden has made it clear that what he wants is either for us to live under the rules of Islam, or die.

33

Is there anything wrong with talking to terrorists? Literally, yes. Which is why the vast majority of the time, there usually arent any direct talks with terrorists; if there are talks, its through intermediaries or political parties with wink wink ‘connections’ to the terrorists.

yojimbo you said:

Sinn Fein which is the political wing of the IRA is now the biggest nationalist party in the North and a small but influential party in the Republic.

I havent followed Irish politics in a couple of years, but it was only that long ago that SF got its highest poll return - 15%. Are they really the majority Nationalist party now?? Seems kind of strange, have they toned down their closet fascism?

This may seem a bit off topic, but I think a few peoples perceptions of the Irish situation is leading them to conclusions as regards an answer to the OP that may not be so well based.

All the talking with the IRA through the 80’s led to nothing. What led to something was the first cease fire. Thinking about it though, the talks through the 80’s may have led to that; in the way of ‘When you stop killing, we’ll start talking’. It was that first sign of willingness to ~stop~ violence that got the ball rolling. And it was the brick wall the IRA ran into by their continued use of violence that got them to try the other tactic - ‘peace’.

I would also like to point out that, certainly as far as the old early 70’s structural sectarianism in N.Ireland, its the SDLP hands down, Hume in particular, that deserves the credit for the improvement in the lives and opportunities of mainstream Nationalists. From housing councils to fair employment, it was Hume and the SDLP who were willing to hold their noses and take their seats in Parliament and do the necessary work while Adams whined from the sidelines.

No, the SDLP arent what they were; but if anyone wants to use Ireland as some kind of example of the benefits of talking to terrorists, I think they should clarify exactly who in N.Ireland is responsible for what. I dont think the improvement in the lives of the Nationalists in N.Ireland is due to the IRA. Far from it; I think they could have been where they are today 10 years ago if it hadnt been for the IRA. One thing Sinn Fein and the IRA are and always have been good at is P.R; whether at the expense of the British, the Loyalists, or other Nationalists.

Im just very much against people holding Ireland up as a successful model of talking to terrorists; I dont think its telling the whole story.

34

Yes. 24% of first preference votes in last year’s election, compared to the SDLP’s 17%.

Define “closet fascism” please.

In the 1980s? Which talks are you referring to?

This is far too one-sided an analysis. It was the use of violence that forced changes in the orange apartheid statelet that was “Northern Ireland” to begin with, and it was the recognition on both sides that neither could defeat the other militarily that led to the search by both sides for peace.

John Hume deserves credit for a lot of things, but to say that the lessening of inequality in the North is due entirely to politics is disingenuous. The unionists didn’t just hand over civil rights because they were asked nicely to do so.

And I think they would still be today where they were 40 years ago if it hadn’t been for the IRA.

35

Did you read my whole post? I explained that there were two types of terrorists: those that make a demand with the threat of terror as a consequence of non-compliance, and those who it for more general goals (recruiting, policy change, killing infidels). The former often do (or did) expect their demands to be met. Sam Stone gave some good examples.

36

So its ok to attack AQ people, but not IRA, so the old saying “One mans terroist is anothers freedom fighter” rings true.

I wouldnt say executions, more like pre-emptive stikes, to elaborate the IRA’s definition of executions, special forces ambushing terror cells, thus preventing bombing operations. Released soldiers convicted of murder, no where near as many soldiers have been released as terrorists. Generally when you fight a war you do shoot to kill, thats the general idea.

37

Yeah, good thing they stopped Rosemary Nelson before she could defend anyone else’s human rights!

One man’s soldier is another’s terrorist.

38

One mans defender of human rights is anothers defender of scum.

39

They colluded in the bombing. The dogs in the street know this. If the Brits ever publish the Cory Report (without censoring it into irrelevance) and hold the independent inquiry which Justice Cory has recommended into the matter, it will be beyond deniability.

Hell, one man’s lawyer is another’s defender of scum. That’s pretty much part of the job description. In most places though that isn’t considered a reason to assassinate them.

40

ruadh: They colluded in the bombing. The dogs in the street know this. If the Brits ever publish the Cory Report (without censoring it into irrelevance) and hold the independent inquiry which Justice Cory has recommended into the matter, it will be beyond deniability.
Oh and like all the sides will tell the truth…LOL
ruadh: Hell, one man’s lawyer is another’s defender of scum. That’s pretty much part of the job description. In most places though that isn’t considered a reason to assassinate them.

Nor is being a Protestant, or just having a quiet drink in a pub, or even going shopping. But it never stopped the IRA using it as an excuse