| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Islam Online on calls by US academics to negotiate with al-Qaeda |
| 2005-09-29 |
| The talk with Al-Qaeda and extremists is no longer a taboo subject in the United States with academics setting the change in tone, experts said on Wednesday, September 28. âThe evolution is doubtless the result of a worsening of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lessons of the attacks in London have also been learnt: the threat (of terrorism) can resist the formidable security deployment,â Francois Burgat, a leading expert on the Arab world at France's national research institute (CNRS), told Agence France-Presse (AFP). He said the change in tone was âthe start of a critical reassessment of the logic of the whole security policy.â Burgat was commenting on a controversial Boston Globe article by Harvard University professor and prominent expert on Al-Qaeda Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou under the title âTime to Talk to Al Qaeda?â âWith the conflict viewed largely as an open-and-shut matter of good versus evil, nonmilitary engagement with Al Qaeda is depicted as improper and unnecessary,â wrote Mohamedou in the September 14 article. âYet developing a strategy for the next phase of the global response to Al Qaeda requires understanding the enemy -- something Western analysts have systematically failed to do.â Mohamedou, associate director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University, said it is high time the West put into consideration demands of extremists. âSince the attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have delivered, respectively, 18 and 15 messages via audio or videotape making a three-part case: The United States must end its military presence in the Middle East, its uncritical political support and military aid of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, and its support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Arab and Muslim world,â he said. Allen Zerkin, an expert in responses to disasters at New York University, said that governments would have to seek a truce with Al-Qaeda sooner or later, seeing eye to eye with Mohamedou that neither side can win the war. âTo be sure, the terrorists can't win this war, but neither can we,â he told AFP. Derided by critics as an apologist for Al-Qaeda, Mohamedou said neither side can defeat the other. âThe United States will not be able to overpower a diffuse, ever-mutating, organized international militancy movement, whose struggle enjoys the rear-guard sympathy of large numbers of Muslims. Likewise, Al-Qaeda can score tactical victories on the United States and its allies, but it cannot rout the world's sole superpower,â he wrote. âNo longer able to enjoy a centralized sanctuary in Afghanistan after 2002, Al- Qaeda's leadership opted for an elastic defense strategy relying on mobile forces, scaled-up international operations, and expanded global tactical relationships. It encouraged the proliferation of mini Al-Qaedas, able to act on their own within a regional context.â A research by Robert Pape at Chicago University has also challenged the commonly held belief that the motivations for terrorism are religious fanaticism, AFP said. Pape said he was âsurprisedâ to discover from the study of 463 suicide bombings that âwhat over 95 percent of all suicide attacks around the world since 1980 until today have in common is not religion, but a clear, strategic objective: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.â In his article, Mohamedou also cited the analysis of the former head of the âBin Laden unitâ at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, who is now a fierce critic of the Bush administration and its âWar on Terrorâ policy. During a recent speech at the US Army War College, Scheuer said that both militant and non-militant Muslims hated the United States âfor what we do in the Islamic world, not for our democratic beliefs and civil liberties.â One of the four would-be London bombers told investigators they were motivated by the Iraq war and not by religious fervor, denying any link to Al-Qaeda network. In an obvious retreat from his earlier stance, British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently acknowledged that the Iraq war was being used to recruit terrorists. The London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, further said the Iraq war has given a momentum to Al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising and made Britain more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #8 âTo be sure, the terrorists can't win this war, but neither can we,â he told AFP. The solution is simple: when an Al Qaeda member is found, kill him. Repeat as many times as necessary. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-09-29 22:34 |
| #7 I think the lesson to be learned from this war is that we need to find a way to DEFEAT Al Qaeda, because if we don't, if we negotiate or some such crap, we will just encourage the next international stateless terror organization to have a go at us. (End of statement of the blindingly obvious.) |
| Posted by: jolly roger 2005-09-29 18:59 |
| #6 Its been said elsewhere here today but it bears repeating The Enemy Within |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-09-29 17:39 |
| #5 According to Ho Chi Minh own words: After Tet the North-Vietnamese were on the verge of conceding defeat. It was the sight of the protesters in the US who incited them to persevere. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-09-29 16:51 |
| #4 Where does it say in our Constitution that a bunch of long-haired post-1960's academics have any authority to make federal policy? I've read the document many times, and I don't remember any such clause. US "academics" can say anything they want, can "call upon" the US Government to do this or that, and it has just as much weight as any other citizen. To counter these loonies, I call for the United States to "facilitate" a regime change in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Sudan and Indonesia, using "any and all means available to the government and people of the United States, without exception". "Would you like a FATWA with that????" |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-09-29 14:22 |
| #3 âThe United States will not be able to overpower a diffuse, ever-mutating, organized international militancy movement, whose struggle enjoys the rear-guard sympathy of large numbers of Muslims. How 'bout we just give it try first and see what happens. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2005-09-29 11:27 |
| #2 Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach become "academics" at Harvard and get to write op/ed pieces for The Boston Globe. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-09-29 09:48 |
| #1 Wow, so much crap packed into a single article... The talk with Al-Qaeda and extremists is no longer a taboo subject in the United States with academics setting the change in tone, experts said on Wednesday, September 28. Then in the next sentence he quotes... another academic. A single academic, let me point out. Burgat was commenting on a controversial Boston Globe article... Self-explanatory... âYet developing a strategy for the next phase of the global response to Al Qaeda requires understanding the enemy -- something Western analysts have systematically failed to do.â I understand the enemy well enough - they want us to die in large numbers or convert to Islam. How are you gonna 'negotiate' around that wall, Francois? The United States must end its military presence in the Middle East, I thought it was only to remove our presence from Saudi Arabia. Give an Arab an inch, he'll take the whole friggin' Middle East. One of the four would-be London bombers told investigators they were motivated by the Iraq war and not by religious fervor, denying any link to Al-Qaeda network. Adding to your list of greivances, real and perceived - an enemy you simply cannot placate, therefore impervious to negotiaion. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-09-29 09:20 |