| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Misreading the Enemy |
| 2006-04-28 |
| The irony of the headline seems purely unintentional What It's a truism that all conflicts end eventually. But how do you resolve a confrontation with an adversary that appears unable or unwilling to negotiate a settlement? That's a common problem that runs through the West's battles with militant Islam. The most pressing instance is Iran's drive to become a nuclear power. The United States and its allies still talk as if it will be possible to stop the Iranian nuclear program short of war, through a combination of sanctions and diplomatic negotiations. But the Iranians push ahead, seemingly oblivious, and the ruling mullahs act contemptuous of the West's threats and blandishments. Iran's implacability may have been the most important lesson of the three years of "negotiations" over its nuclear program conducted by three European Union nations, France, Britain and Germany. In fact, says a senior French official, it wasn't really a negotiation at all. "The E.U. talked and the Iranians responded, but they never came back with counterproposals because they could not agree on anything." French analysts believe the Iranians displayed a similar refusal to negotiate during their long and bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. The exhausted Iraqis made efforts to seek a negotiated peace, but the Iranians rejected their feelers. After America and France covertly aided Saddam Hussein, the Iranians finally accepted a United Nations-mandated cease-fire in August 1988. But there was never a formal peace treaty, and the Iranians dragged their feet even on the exchange of prisoners. The latest example of Iran's diplo-phobia was a statement this week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissing the U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq that had tentatively been set with the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. There was nothing to talk about, Ahmadinejad implied. Now that the Iraqis had formed a new government, he said, "the occupiers should leave and allow Iraqi people to run their country." Analysts think this reluctance to negotiate partly reflects divisions within Iran's ruling elite. Certainly the diffuse centers of power in the Iranian government make it difficult to reach a common position. But I suspect there is a deeper disconnect: For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema. Great issues of war and peace will be resolved by God's will, not by human negotiators. Better to lose than to bargain with the devil. Better to suffer physical hardship than humiliation. This same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups. Al-Qaeda doesn't seek negotiations or a political settlement, nor should the West imagine it could reach one with a group that demands that America and its allies withdraw altogether from the Muslim world. The closest Osama bin Laden has come to a political demarche was his Jan. 19 offer of "a long-term truce based on fair conditions," which weren't specified. His deeper message was that al-Qaeda would wait it out -- waging a long war of attrition, confident that its adversaries would eventually grow tired and capitulate. America's powerful weapons might win battles, he said, "but they will lose the war. Being patient and steady is much better, and the end counts." The West has placed its hopes on the political maturation of radical Muslim groups, figuring that as they assume responsibility, they will grow accustomed to the compromises that are essential to political life. But so far, there is little evidence to support this hope. The Hamas government appears to have nothing it wants to negotiate with Israel. Indeed, it still refuses to formally recognize the existence of its adversary. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has agreed to little compromises since it joined the government, but not big ones. A word that recurs in radical Muslim proclamations is "dignity." That is not a political demand, nor one that can be achieved through negotiation. Indeed, for groups that feel victimized, negotiation with a powerful adversary can itself be demeaning. That's why the unyielding Yasser Arafat remained popular among Palestinians, despite his failure to deliver concrete benefits. He was a symbol of pride and resistance. Hamas, too, gains support because of its rigid steadfastness, and a strategy that seeks to punish pro-Hamas Palestinians into compromise will probably fail for the same reason. The Muslim demand for respect isn't something that can be negotiated, but that doesn't mean the West shouldn't take it seriously. For as the Muslim world gains a greater sense of dignity in its dealings with the West, the fundamental weapon of Iran, al-Qaeda and Hamas will lose much of its potency. It's hard to dispute much of the first eight paragraphs, where he describes Iran (and Islamo-fascists in general) as being making unreasonable demands and not negotiating in good faith. But then he concludes with the idea that all these problems would magically melt away were the Iranians treated with "dignity". Of course, "dignity" is not defined and no evidence is given that showing such "respect" has ever worked in the past. What would be a concrete example of showing Iran the sort of "respect" they desire so much more than power? Giving them the Sudetenland? |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #9 But how do you resolve a confrontation with an adversary that appears unable or unwilling to negotiate a settlement? Ask the National Socialist German Workers Party. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-04-28 21:47 |
| #8 But how do you resolve a confrontation with an adversary that appears unable or unwilling to negotiate a settlement? You do what has been done throughout history. You kill them. If not all of them, a sufficient number whereby they are persuaded from further resistance or interference. Only with the advent of modern weapons have we been given an option like we had at Hiroshima. There, we demonstrated our resolve to kill the enemy in sufficient quantity on a continuing basis to where a nation was made to see reason. This is much less likely with any of the Arab countries, but the process needs to begin. Waiting for some trigger event like a terrorist nuclear attack on one of our cities is worse than stupid. We must start by breaking Iran. A continued succession of shattered rogue nations must follow in their wake. There are no more options. We are up against an enemy of such intransigence that there is no hope of anything but blunt trauma and brute force winning the day. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-04-28 16:42 |
| #7 AlanC: True, I made the unwarranted assumption that State would be working on our behalf and not to some internal political end. I was thinking more along the lines of how a successor to a recently departed Ahmadinejad could claim that allowing surprise US nuclear inspectors was a victory for Islam. |
| Posted by: James 2006-04-28 15:43 |
| #6 you can't give them dignity - they have to earn it, and so far, *ptui*, they've lost more than they've earned |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-28 11:34 |
| #5 This guy is a racist. Who are "The Mulims"? Why shouldthey have dignity but not the other people who live in the Middle East? And how does a group that includes individuals of every shape, size and fault obtain diginity? Do the Anglo-Saxons have dignity? How about the French and Germans? How about the Germans living in America? If they want dignity, they should work elp other people. There's way too little of that going on over there. Until there is, they will never get enough dignity from us, no matter how much we give them. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 11:14 |
| #4 I would be willing to give more than take with trade deals with Iraqis and such. But, with Iran and nukes, they should see little to no talk and fire and their blood. The message being, we will work with you and give you an advantage if you work peacefully with us. Fuck with us, and you are doomed. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-28 10:58 |
| #3 But James, I missed the part where they ever concede anything. It's always "if we give in just a little more...just make it sound like a bigger concession on our part..." Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't that a dictionary definition of appeasement? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-04-28 10:35 |
| #2 I read it a little differently. He's suggesting that when we deal with them, whatever we concede has to be magnified so that they can feel like they're powerful and important. It doesn't matter if the concession was just a sop, if they can feel like they got the better of us somehow, they'll be more likely to keep the bargain. We have to understand their position and culture well enough to make the spin plausible. But that's part of the negotiator's job. |
| Posted by: James 2006-04-28 10:25 |
| #1 There is dignity in death, we should give them what they want the most. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-04-28 10:19 |