We’d rather kill them.
It’s a nonsense term but when it’s used it’s generally the correct stance. We’ve never had a problem negotiating with all manner of groups, groups that commit terrorism, dictators etc. Hell, that’s just how States behave, and they have to, nothing wrong with it. So it does make us look silly when we use the phrase “we do not negotiate with terrorists” but in the specific scenarios where I typically see the phrase used I do think it makes sense.
Recently, when some terrorists seized an Algerian oil and gas field with many Western workers stationed there one of their demands was that we release the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. In response the State Department said, “we do not negotiate with terrorists.” That’s typically the type of scenario where it makes sense not to negotiate, if you reward hostage taking and other types of behaviors it does nothing to your benefit in the long term. Refusing to negotiate doesn’t necessarily prevent future hostage taking but it avoids setting a dangerous precedent.
So I think the best way to use the phrase would be something like, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists in the middle of a terrorist attack in which the only thing we get out of the negotiation is them agreeing to end the attack.” But I think it’s obvious why the phrase isn’t that.
Punitive expeditions certainly can work. The Romans used them several times north of Hadrians wall or on other border “barbarians” and it often brought peace for generations.
When was the last “punitive expedition” by a third world country?
We have led punitive expeditions into Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam that lasted for over a decade. In each case we dropped more bombs than were dropped by all nations in the entirety of World War II.
They don’t work because invading other countries and killing their people tends to inspire more people to join the cause of the terrorists. And unlike in the time of the Romans, it’s relatively easy for a couple of guys to make a bomb and kill a bunch of people with it.
And who are those “terrorists” whom you feel serve a “legitimate cause” and engage in “terrorism” solely to prevent the slaughter of men, women, and children?
The Times Square bomber, for one. It is a mistake to believe that illegitimate tactics are used only in the service of illegitimate goals.
Define terrorism. If terrorism is the desire to inflict fear and disorder (especially on civilians) to achieve a political goal or vengeance, then negotiating can be seen as a sign that those tactics work and are valid.
But the US does that with North Korea.
Who the fuck knows. I don’t. I’m glad I could help.
Gen. Wesley Clark
The Wikipedia article that in included in the quote in your link gives the answer:
China’s per capita income in 1980 was $250, so it certainly was then a third world country.
As for the US, I am an American, and this was not my country’s stated war aim. Are you thinking that GW Bush was really dissappointed when the regimes fell, since he just wanted to punish them so they would be deterred from future actions against US interests? Or do you and I (with Wikiepedia on my side) have a totally different definition of the term “punitive expedition?”
In the case of Vietnam, this is plausible, but I can only find World War II tonnage figures for the US and Britian. Do you have them for other belligerents such as Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia?
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I question this. Do you have a mainstream (AKA no-ax-to-grind) source?
If you had told me on 9/12/11, that there would be appromately ten more Americans killed, on American soil, between then and mid-May 2013, by what most people would see as clearcut terrorism, I would have thought that whatever we had done in the interim was wildly successful. And that’s what happenned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_against_Americans
Having said that, if my nation had launched a punitive expidition against Afghanistan, rather than an attempt to change the regime and society, that might have worked as well with lower casualties all around.
And I don’t think Iraq had to do with 9/11, but with Saddam’s inspection refusals. The late Alistair Cooke said that Bill Clinton wanted to go to war with Iraq but couldn’t due to insufficient political capital. Iraq was on a different track and IMHO didn’t affect terrorism one way or the other.
Sorry, I am not going to give up my right to be equal with men - to drive my own car, own my own property, work a job and keep the income, decide who I am going to marry, and be publicly agnostic/christian and become muslim. Ain’t going to happen, and that is the only thing that the islamic fundies causing most of the ruckus considers the only result that they will accept.
I would not consider forcing them to become christian, just to allow religious and sexual based freedoms like we have in the west. They refuse to do this and want us to become fundie islamist instead, so who is acting like a bratty 3 year old with a new toy?
To be totally honest, if any foreign power ever invaded my country (Australia) I’m pretty sure that my younger 20yo self would have taken up arms. That guy I was 20 years ago wouldn’t have wanted anything other than the chance to hurt the “invaders”, even at the risk of being labelled a “terrorist” and the almost certain chance of death.
And I’m pretty sure that the powers in any conflict use the naive passion of young men such as I once was to fight their useless battles.
To put it another way; I very much doubt that political warhawks would exist if the old and jaded men who start wars were the first in line to go into combat.
And that is exactly why I hate chickenhawks like Dick Cheney, who did everything they could to avoid fighting when they were young and stupid, but who later in their lives were quite happy to throw other young men and women into the inhuman meat-grinder that is modern warfare.
I honestly have more respect for the utterly pathetic and misguided Boston bombers than I have for the likes of cowardly and hypocritical scum like Dick Cheney.
Does any other authority agree with that?
If any Democratic President wanted to go to war with Iraq, it would be Jimmy Carter.
John Brown was a terrorist who wanted the end of slavery. I think that ending slavery was the right action, even though some opponents of slavery used terror as a weapon ( just to be clear, I also condemn the terrorism of Brown).
Er no, that’s not why he did what he did.
He joined Al Quaeda because his wife left him and his house was foreclosed on.
Al Quaeda hated the US long before the Iraq wars and was enraged by the US having troops on Saudi soil(the homes of Mecca and Medina) which Bin Laden saw as a grave violation.
Anyway, once again, please label the terrorist groups which you think have “legitimate causes” and are motivated by the desire to prevent the killing of men, women, and children.
Thanks.
None that I know of. When I heard Cooke said it on his BBC Letter from America broadcast, I was wondering how he knew.
Looking, right now, to check that my memory was correct, it turns out that Cooke said it in his final broadcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00sylxq/features/transcript
Whether or not Cooke had some inside source, it seems plausible to me. The US and UK were bombing Iraqi miltary facilities, killing hapless draftees, every few weeks, and authorizations must have been taking up an enormity of presidential time and attention. Ordering bombing is stressful. Saddam surely was a good deal more urgent a matter to a president of either party (or to a British Prime Minister) than to the average American or Britian.
Iranians were given arms for hostages released in Lebanon. Contras were given arms and money to operate their death squads. A terrorist is someone you don’t like who uses violence. Thus endeth the lesson.
Mmm. Neither of those really works. Iran’s a State actor, by definition not a terrorist. We also were not being terrorized by the Contras nor were we “negotiating” them, we were supporting them covertly. They may or may not have been terrorists but we weren’t giving them anything as part of a negotiation in response to demands but because we essentially supported their ultimate goals.
The government of Iran wasn’t a terrorist organization.
For that matter, I don’t remember the Contras ever being listed as one or doing anything that would warrant them being more of a terrorist organization than just about any guerilla resistance group.
That’s actually the childish argument, because it assumes that there are no conflicts where both sides are right. When I think back on the history of our involvement in the Middle East, I can think of things we should have not done, but there are enough things we did that we should have that still would have created terrorism. We should have armed the mujahadeen, we should be supporting Israel, we should have cultivated moderate Arab allies during the Cold War even though that meant supporting dictators, and we should have liberated Kuwait and placed stiff sanctions on Iraq.
Within their own territory, Third World countries do it all the time, and it’s VERY effective. Syria stopped a fundie uprising dead with the massacre at Hama in 1982 and Iraq stopped an uprising by the majority of the country in 1991 with brute force. Brute force works shockingly well, even against people who claim to love dying for the cause. But they like dying for a winning cause, not a lost one. WHen it’s clear they can’t win, they give up just like anyone else.
That’s becuase we kill without creating the kind of fear and sense of hopelessness that is required to win. In the old days, we’d rampage around and kill tons of civilians and then just leave, denying them anything to strike back against. Now we stay, and go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. What that does is make them not fear us, but still be mad at us because we do actually still kill a lot of civilians.
But I think we’re heading back to the punitive expedition days simply by necessity. We don’t want to occupy countries anymore and try to do nationbuilding. If another 9/11 happens and say, Iran is responsible, we’ll probably just go in, break everything that looks important, and get out.
I’d rather the US not engage in what Tom Friedman called “Hama Rules”.