Negotiate with Terrorists

[Yusuf Evans]

Okay, I'm gonna bring up a bit of a conversation that another Marine and I had. Let's think about this. What would happen if we were to negotiate with the terrorists we are currently fighting? Let's say we promise to pull out all but a few contingent troops. These troops would remain behind to assist with the training of their military and their police force. We would ask that the U.N. be allowed to provide a humantiarian relief force to re-establish the sorely needed infrastructure. We would also promise to help them financially, as would the international community, until they were able to stand on their own. Of all these benefits, we ask only one condition: No Sharia Law inposed upon the populace. Do you think this would work?

 

[CHARLES H]

Okay, I'm gonna bring up a bit of a conversation that another Marine and I had. Let's think about this. What would happen if we were to negotiate with the terrorists we are currently fighting? Let's say we promise to pull out all but a few contingent troops. These troops would remain behind to assist with the training of their military and their police force. We would ask that the U.N. be allowed to provide a humantiarian relief force to re-establish the sorely needed infrastructure. We would also promise to help them financially, as would the international community, until they were able to stand on their own. Of all these benefits, we ask only one condition: No Sharia Law inposed upon the populace. Do you think this would work?

very dangerous. could really backfire on us. they may see us as weak and step up attacks.

 

[Sphere]

very dangerous. could really backfire on us. they may see us as weak and step up attacks.

bingo. Negotiating with the terrorists will set a very bad precedent for them to fall back on.

 

[Helo]

And nothing like ****ing them off to result in more attacks.

At this point, I think negotiating should be an option.

I seriously doubt negotiations would encourage further attacks. Look what its saying "After years of struggle and slaughter, we might negotiate"

 

[CHARLES H]

And nothing like ****ing them off to result in more attacks.

At this point, I think negotiating should be an option.

I seriously doubt negotiations would encourage further attacks. Look what its saying "After years of struggle and slaughter, we might negotiate"

i disagree they do not respect weakness.

 

[Alabaster]

The question is completely invalid. There is a complete lack of comprehension of the forces at work.

In short, there are no terrorists to negotiate with.

Terrorism is no longer what it once was, and treating it with outdated thinking is not going to solve anything. A better term, which is used these days among most policy analysts, is non-State actors. A non-State actor is exactly what it claims to be, an actor without official State sanction, but nevertheless a powerful entity. The Westphalia system is disintegrating, though this is hotly debated, and outdated thinking is cancerous to international progress.

For example HAMAS is a traditional terrorist group, yet they engage in non-terrorist activities and now are legitimized political actors. Hezbollah is another example of such a group. Labeling these groups as terrorists misses the point of their motivations and support structures.

Additionally there are foreign and native non-State entities that are opposing the US, and both would need to be treated differently.

Lastly, though there is no current ME nations that operates under Sharia, they all give lip service to it for political reasons. Therefore it would be ludicrous to insist that Iraq not do the same.

Additionally it is grossly offensive and a REALLY bad idea. Under what notion of diplomatic thought is asking a nation to turn against a millennia of their cultural heritage a good idea?

 

[Merkava]

Yes. Lets negotiate with the terrorists in good faith so that we can ensure peace in our time!

 

[christalee4]

Okay, I'm gonna bring up a bit of a conversation that another Marine and I had. Let's think about this. What would happen if we were to negotiate with the terrorists we are currently fighting? Let's say we promise to pull out all but a few contingent troops. These troops would remain behind to assist with the training of their military and their police force. We would ask that the U.N. be allowed to provide a humantiarian relief force to re-establish the sorely needed infrastructure. We would also promise to help them financially, as would the international community, until they were able to stand on their own. Of all these benefits, we ask only one condition: No Sharia Law inposed upon the populace. Do you think this would work?

Very interesting solution. The only thing that is misleading is your term used about the insurgency in Iraq - "terrorists" doesn't really describe the complexity. Terrorists are people I consider to be renegade lone groups fueled by religious or political fanaticism, like the young men who bombed the Twin Towers. We didn't invade Iraq to fight the "terrorists". We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The insurgency is made of many different elements, including many regular workaday Iraqis who see us as invading force to be kicked out.

A couple of problems with your solution. First of all, the "coalition" was primarily the United States, then Britain, and a smattering of countries. We invaded without UN support. We "broke it", do you think the UN is going to help us "fix it"? Also, in our quest to set up a "democracy" in Iraq, we removed the previous barrier that had kept fundamentalist Islam at bay. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but a secular tyrant, and like the countries in Egypt and Syria, had oppressed religious fundamentalist parties so that they wouldn't create an oppressive theocracy. Now that the United States brought in free elections without a foundation of real democracy to base them on, what does the majority choose? Sharia law. Tyranny of the majority.

I think the United States military will be there, but not so much to rebuild the country and help Iraqi's put an end to the civil war. The current leadership wants the United States to establish a permanent foothold in the region, because we possibly may wage war against Iran, or other countries who support radical Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[tulc]

part of the problem lies in: todays terrorist is tomorrow's leader. People sometimes forget that.
tulc(thought the hama's analogy was very apt)

 

[Grey Eminence]

Okay, I'm gonna bring up a bit of a conversation that another Marine and I had. Let's think about this. What would happen if we were to negotiate with the terrorists we are currently fighting?

Which ones will you negotiate with?

Let's say we promise to pull out all but a few contingent troops. These troops would remain behind to assist with the training of their military and their police force.

That works for an opening offer. But what happens when they ask you to remove everything. Because that is what they will ask for and that is what many of them are fighting for.

We would ask that the U.N. be allowed to provide a humantiarian relief force to re-establish the sorely needed infrastructure.

A 'Humanitarian Relief Force' is something you send to place where natural disasters hit. Iraq is not in the ballpark. The entire country's water and waste-water systems need to be rebuilt. The power grid almost needs to be completely rebuilt. And that is just the two most immediate problems.

Besides look at your own language, "We would ask...", as if the people of Iraq that you are talking with are to obtuse to have a good idea of what they need. Why not let them ask rather than putting it in the treaty.

Unless you are just trying to codify the obligations of a third party to your conflict. And then not pay for it in the next UN appropriations.

We would also promise to help them financially, as would the international community, until they were able to stand on their own.

Under the terms of the concluding treaty with respect to the Vietnam 'experience' the US agreeded to provide Vietnam with several billion dollars (IIRC). The US never did. And the US never will in Iraq. The Government might agree to it on paper but X<24 months later they will be aiming to 'engineer' a concensus of "Why should we be giving money to those Iraqi's while real Americans need that money?".

Please refrain from invoking the 'international community'. It did not break Iraq and would not be party to any agreement the US would reach in Iraq. So do not talk about 'the internation community' as if it somehow shares in this mess. Go talk to the 'coalition of the willing'.

Of all these benefits, we ask only one condition: No Sharia Law inposed upon the populace. Do you think this would work?

There is more to it than that. What about when they also aim to toss out all of the economic policies imposed by the US over the last several years? And what if they impose Sharia a few months after the US has left. Are you going to re-invade to stop them? Bomb them some more to encorage them not to?

If anything the US would want a few terms like this in any notional treaty just so they can goad Iraq (or its [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] states) into breaking them so the US can break its own obligations.

** ** **

In summary this is what you proposed for terms...

Let us keep forces in country,
Let us keep controlling your domestic policy.

I can only guess how that will go over, and it is not hard.

 

[xMinionX]

Could work, although I'm very wary of it.

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

The only negotiating that the United States government should be doing with terrorists is as a facilitor of meetings between them and Allah.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

What we should really do is kill them all and let Allah sort them out!!!

Shouldn't we?? what is the difference if we just kill them one at a time with a cost of the lost of more American Boys and Girls or kill them all at one time and take care of our problem..

 

[PastorMikeJ]

A known terriorist is a dead terriorist!! this way if we aren't sure and kill them then we can be sure..right??

 

[ACougar]

First, while we are fighting some terrorists in Iraq, not everyone were fighting in Iraq is a terrorist. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such, if they have hostages we should negotiate within reason just like we would negotiate with any other criminal who had hostages.

Second, human rights are exactly that... human rights. If you suspect someone of being a criminal you bring him up on charges and give him a fair trail. You don't stop to the criminals level by murdering suspected criminals, if we do that were worse than the terrorists.

Third, Iraq is not our country. We have no bussiness there other than fixing what we broke and then exiting as quickly and completly as possible. The United States military exists to protect and defend the United States, not to establish the United States as some sort of Imperial power.

 

[Fallschirmjägergewehr]

What we should really do is kill them all and let Allah sort them out!!!

Shouldn't we?? what is the difference if we just kill them one at a time with a cost of the lost of more American Boys and Girls or kill them all at one time and take care of our problem..

Death solves all problems. No man (or woman), no problem.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

First, while we are fighting some terrorists in Iraq, not everyone were fighting in Iraq is a terrorist. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such, if they have hostages we should negotiate within reason just like we would negotiate with any other criminal who had hostages.

Second, human rights are exactly that... human rights. If you suspect someone of being a criminal you bring him up on charges and give him a fair trail. You don't stop to the criminals level by murdering suspected criminals, if we do that were worse than the terrorists.

Third, Iraq is not our country. We have no bussiness there other than fixing what we broke and then exiting as quickly and completly as possible. The United States military exists to protect and defend the United States, not to establish the United States as some sort of Imperial power.

make sure you send this to the Pres...it is the US policy from ages not to negotiate with terrorists...He isn't the only one that has a policy of not negotiating with terrorist...

 

[Malakar]

And nothing like ****ing them off to result in more attacks.

At this point, I think negotiating should be an option.

I seriously doubt negotiations would encourage further attacks. Look what its saying "After years of struggle and slaughter, we might negotiate"

Are you kidding? These are people who will burn down buildings because of cartoons. You can't negotiate with them. Once you start negotiating with them you give them power and control. In case you forgot, Europe negotiated with Hitler and he ended up starting WWII, they decided to give him what he wanted so he would like them and be their friend. You can't negotiate with a psychopath.

 

[tulc]

The only negotiating that the United States government should be doing with terrorists is as a facilitor of meetings between them and Allah.

Ahhh! Much the same thinking as drives planes into buildings. Welcome to the world of fundamentalism,
please check your mind at the door, and accept this exploding vest as a 'Welcome to the family!" gift!
tulc(I expected better from a brown coat)

 

[xMinionX]

Death solves all problems. No man (or woman), no problem.

I'd like to think we've developed beyond the 'blow up everyone we don't like' stage.