Why doesn’t the US?
Since when they do, they are not “terrorists”, they are “combatants” or “stakeholders”.
That’s at least one thing that the US does right, IMO.
Because if you do, then you’ll open yourself to a next time…and a next time after that…and a next time after that. Etc etc.
Look at what happened during the Iran Contra affair. Oliver North gave the Iranians weapons to free all the hostages…then it turned out more weapons were needed to free one hostage and then, what do you know? Another hostage was taken and missiles were needed.
And so on, and so forth.
Negotiation is only useful when it results in benefits for both parties, and both parties can be trusted to keep the agreement. Terrorists usually don’t keep agreements, instead they just take more hostages and demand more.
Also, if the US started negotiating with terrorists, then you’d have to wonder why the US would use force on, rather than negotiate with, domestic criminals. International law, like national law, has no value if our response to lawbreakers is to hold talks rather than demand compliance.
That if once you have paid him the Danegeld,
You never get rid of the Dane.
Terrorists don’t “negotiate.” If they did, they wouldn’t be terrorists. As AK84 said.
I believe there is only one way to deal with terrorists, and that is to identify the underlying motives that led them to make such a sacrifice. I don’t speak of those who wear the bombs, but of those who are so sure of their purpose that they can convince callow, innocent young people to wear the bombs. How much dedication to the cause must these fuckers have to commit such wrong?
It is that cause that we must strike against. Whatever outcome that their actions were designed to bring forth, we must strive to see that it fails. The only way that we can do that is to understand why they struck us. If we do not not understand their motives, we cannot foil them.
All terrorists want something. The best way to defeat terrorism is to swiftly and certainly convince the terrorists that they cannot have it. Ever.
Great point. The terrorists don’t care if they die, they care about their cause. It’s one of the few cases where human knowledge has actually gone backwards. The West used to know how to deal with terrorists: reprisals against the cause they were fighting for. Now we help their cause, either intentionally or unintentionally, which encourages more terrorism.
We negotiate with terrorists all the time. See Iran/Contra. Both terrorists, both given lots of goodies by the US. What the US does is say consistently that “the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists”. To do otherwise would encourage the wrong kind of terrorists: the ones that the people that give gifts to terrorists don’t want to give gifts to.
True of some extreme Islamists and maybe a few others, but not something that is obviously characteristic of all or even most terrorists.
Er…who were the “terrorists” who were given “lots of goodies”?
Do you have a cite or at least some historical context for this seemingly bizarre statement?
A lot of terrorists don’t even have a “cause”, or at least not one that can be considered “rational” or doesn’t fundamentally conflict with our morality or way of life. How would one “negotiate” with the Unibomber? Or Timothy McVey? Or those idiots who blew up the Boston Marathon? Or Al Quaida for that matter?
John Major secretly negotiated with terrorists in 1994. Was that a mistake? Where is the Danegeld today?
I’m not sure that this qualifies under the aphorism “Don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
In late 1993, the British and Irish Republican governments jointly agreed to provide support for a resolution to the violence in Northern Ireland provided all parties agreed to refrain from any more violence. In August, 1994, the IRA made a claim that they were going to avoid further violence and the political process moved forward from there. I realize that this has been described as “negotiating with terrorists,” but while I am sure that Major and company had some sort of communication with the IRA prior to that August, there were no deals cut for Britain to abandon all involvement in Northern Ireland, nor can I think of any other “deal” (aside from possible negotiations regarding clemency or amnesty) that Major negotiated.
It was known as the punitive expedition:
The Third World still does this, but we’ve become too “civilized” to actually win these types of wars.
What if their cause is to stop you bombing innocent men, women and children? Are you going to deliberately murder more civilians just to spite them?
No, the best way to defeat terrorism is not to act like a stubborn child. It’s to do the right thing in the first place, so the only terrorists are the unavoidable ones that do not serve any legitimate cause.
The last part of your post indicates that Major did not capitulate to terrorists. Capitulation and negotiation is not the same thing. Like you said, the historical record strongly indicates that Major did indeed engage in some kind of talks with the pIRA, with the goal of seeking a political agreement. Talking to someone in hopes of finding a meeting of the minds is quite literally the textbook definition of negotiation.
We can all agree that giving in to the demands of extremists is virtually always a bad thing to do. However, the phrase is “negotiating with terrorists,” not “caving in to terrorists.” I believe that very few people seem to understand the difference between the two.
There clearly are times where negotiating the bad people is quite simply the smart thing to do. One can negotiate and not be weak, or give precious things away. All it takes is saying “no.” So, my thought is that we should “be very careful in choosing when to negotiate with bad people,” but that’s a hell of a big difference from “never” negotiating with bad people.
Looking over your link, it would not appear that we were very successful in the “good old days,” either.
Further looking over the list provided would seem to indicate that several of those punitive expeditions provided some of the inspiration for later insurrections or terrorist movements, which is the exact opposite of your claim for their utility.