# Negotiate w/Taliban? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247 "2012-10-09T19:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/1 "2012-10-09T19:45:00Z")
From CNN: A 14-year-old girl who was awarded Pakistan’s first National Peace Prize for her online diary reporting on the Taliban’s ban on education was shot on her way home from school today. The Taliban claimed responsibility. How the hell do you negotiate with them when they start with “Its our way or we will kill you?” ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/2 "2012-10-09T19:48:01Z")
We are far too civilized today, we have weak stomachs. When an enemy is a clear and present danger with no foreseeable solution the answer is very clear what to do. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/3 "2012-10-09T19:48:07Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > From CNN: > > A 14-year-old girl who was awarded Pakistan’s first National Peace Prize for her online diary reporting on the Taliban’s ban on education was shot on her way home from school today. The Taliban claimed responsibility. > > How the hell do you negotiate with them when they start with “Its our way or we will kill you?” You don’t negotiate. The whole pretense of negotiating is only on because there aren’t any politicians with the fucking balls to just pull us out of that abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/4 "2012-10-09T20:15:55Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > You don’t negotiate. The whole pretense of negotiating is only on because there aren’t any politicians with the fucking balls to just pull us out of that abortion. It’s the opposite, actually: there are negotiations because the U.S. can’t stay in Afghanistan forever and at some point someone has to try to run the country. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/5 "2012-10-09T20:25:41Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > You don’t negotiate. The whole pretense of negotiating is only on because there aren’t any politicians with the fucking balls to just pull us out of that abortion. Well, that’s a reason the US may not need to be involved in any negotiations, but I think it behooves the Afghan government to negotiate for a few reasons: 1. Rhetoric aside, many (if not most) [governments](http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62276/peter-r-neumann/negotiating-with-terrorists) have negotiated with terrorist organizations. > [@](#): > > The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple: Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments’ political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent. > > Yet in practice, democratic governments often negotiate with terrorists. The British government maintained a secret back channel to the Irish Republican Army even after the IRA had launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street that nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet in 1991. In 1988, the Spanish government sat down with the separatist group Basque Homeland and Freedom (known by its Basque acronym ETA) only six months after the group had killed 21 shoppers in a supermarket bombing. Even the government of Israel – which is not known to be soft on terrorism – has strayed from the supposed ban: in 1993, it secretly negotiated the Oslo accords even though the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) continued its terrorist campaign and refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist. 1. That is often how terrorism campaigns [end](http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html). According to the RAND study linked to: > [@](#): > > Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement. So if you want to see the end of the Taliban, history advises us we should attempt to find some common political ground rather than trying to fight them militarily. Yes, it’s very easy to write all of these people off as monsters (although many of them are), but it doesn’t mean they are not, at their core, rational actors on some level. By negotiating, you have a much better chance of a sustained, peaceful outcome. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/6 "2012-10-09T21:31:12Z")
Taliban will not negotiate in good faith, and is incapable of negotiating in good faith. It will settle for nothing less than _status quo ante_, win or perish, and anything else they say is a lie. The best result would be a near-future native Afghani governement capable of withstanding the inevitable onslaught without the aid 10s of thousands of foreign soldiers. I doubt this is in the offing. The worst result would be a return to power by Taliban. That would be a tremendous victory for the international movement of Islamic nightcreatures who are our mortal enemies no matter what we do. The intermediate result would several more decades of foriegn presence, if that is how long it takes to last the nightcreatures out. I fear we may not have the will to preform this option. If not, and if Taliban wins, then look for a radicalization of the entire Muslim world: \*If these brethren tribesmen can defeat America, \*\*then \*\*the rest of us can seize \* \*the world if we but follow their ruthless and uncompromising example. \* ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/7 "2012-10-09T21:37:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s the opposite, actually: there are negotiations because the U.S. can’t stay in Afghanistan forever and at some point someone has to try to run the country. Why? It isn’t _our_ country. I doubt that they are going to saddle up and invade the US, and they can’t interfere with our [waterborn] shipping. Realistically the only reason to fuck around in someone’s country is if they are a military hazard to us, and honestly an assortment of terrorists is not actually that much of a danger. We can reasonably easily keep them out of the country by barring immigration and other visas. We can shoot them out of hand if they pop up in our country without a valid visa [OK we can deport them if they are not doing anything criminal, and if we catch them doing something they shouldn’t be doing then shoot them.] Frankly, if we just started shooting the [criminal element](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Maturino_Res%C3%A9ndiz) of the illegal aliens we catch instead of bothering to deport them, might keep the criminal element of the illegals away. Behave, you live, start robbing and killing, die. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/8 "2012-10-09T21:41:26Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Why? Why is it in the U.S.’ interest for there to be a stable government in Afghanistan? Take a look at a history of the country over the last 20 years and I bet you’ll figure it out. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/9 "2012-10-09T22:00:23Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > How the hell do you negotiate with them when they start with “Its our way or we will kill you?” Why do some people always seem to imply that negotiation is weakness? Entering negotiations does not mean capitulation. Just because an FBI agent starts talking on a bullhorn to a hostage taker doesn’t mean the police are folding like paper. In the real world, there are very little downsides to negotiations. Even if an agreement can’t be concluded, there may be concessions along the way that make negotiations worth it – like the hostage taker releasing women and children, or something. Plus those concessions may be gained without you losing anything significant. I defy anyone to say that Winston Churchill didn’t have big brass balls. And what was Churchill’s position on negotiating with bad guys? [“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”](http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/10 "2012-10-09T22:21:05Z")
The problem is that we don’t have anything the Taliban wants. You could say they want us out of Afghanistan and to stop killing them in Pakistan, but they’re actually benefitting from the war. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/11 "2012-10-09T22:34:22Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The problem is that we don’t have anything the Taliban wants. You could say they want us out of Afghanistan and to stop killing them in Pakistan, but they’re actually benefitting from the war. If two people negotiate, there’s obviously something that each person wants. That does not mean that each party knows what the other party’s interests really are at the outset. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/12 "2012-10-09T22:42:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If two people negotiate, there’s obviously something that each person wants. That does not mean that each party knows what the other party’s interests really are at the outset. That’s not a wise way to negotiate. This isn’t friendly situation. It’s not that things can’t arise out of negotiation that weren’t considered before hand, but you have to start negotiations from a position of strength, and we don’t have that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/13 "2012-10-09T22:46:33Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That’s not a wise way to negotiate. This isn’t friendly situation. It’s not that things can’t arise out of negotiation that weren’t considered before hand, but you have to start negotiations from a position of strength, and we don’t have that. Two part question: was the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in 2001, and is it in power now? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/14 "2012-10-09T22:55:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Two part question: was the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in 2001, and is it in power now? Yes, and yes. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/15 "2012-10-09T23:57:28Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > From CNN: > > A 14-year-old girl who was awarded Pakistan’s first National Peace Prize for her online diary reporting on the Taliban’s ban on education was shot on her way home from school today. The Taliban claimed responsibility. > > How the hell do you negotiate with them when they start with “Its our way or we will kill you?” You make that part of what you’re negotiating for. You tell the Taliban you want them to stop killing innocent civilians. We’ll offer to stop launching drone attacks against their bases. But if they kill another civilian, we’ll resume our drone attacks. Like Ravenman said, negotiating isn’t surrendering. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/16 "2012-10-10T00:03:53Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > you have to start negotiations from a position of strength, and we don’t have that. So you don’t believe in any negotiation, ever, about anything, with anyone. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/17 "2012-10-10T00:25:24Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > So you don’t believe in any negotiation, ever, about anything, with anyone. No. I said nothing of the kind. I believe in entering negotiations from a position of strength. I don’t see the point of negotiating and coming out with the short end of the stick. We could do that without negotiating. Negotiation is an adversarial process, not hugs and kisses. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/18 "2012-10-10T00:38:16Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > No. I said nothing of the kind. I believe in entering negotiations from a position of strength. Someone’s always going to want to wait for a position of strength. Therefore, no negotiations. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/19 "2012-10-10T00:45:52Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Someone’s always going to want to wait for a position of strength. Therefore, no negotiations. You don’t seem to understand negotiations. It’s not a fair process. You want the other side to think you are weak and enter into the negotiations. Rational people can negotiate from a stalemate, but we’re talking about the Taliban here. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/20 "2012-10-10T00:47:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Someone’s always going to want to wait for a position of strength. Therefore, no negotiations. You don’t seem to understand negotiations. It’s not a fair process. You want the other side to think you are weak and enter into the negotiations. Or to think they are weak and believe they will benefit as a result. If it was as easy as you seem to believe we wouldn’t have most of the world’s problems right now. Rational people can negotiate from a stalemate, but we’re talking about the Taliban here. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247.md?page=2)