I want to underline that I'm not in the least trying to outrage or upset anyone and I certainly don't want a tribe of spineless namecallers descending on me, it's just a "What if???"
There is a perception that the only way to deal with terrorism is to continue a policy of uncompromising non negotiation. I understand the theory, but the reality is that this policy has never worked. It's a fantasy. Why insist on a repetition of failure???
Wherever terrorism has been dealt with successfully, the policy of diplomacy, negotiation, has always been present. A significant factor in ending Sri Lanka's decades of suicide bombings was indeed negotiating with the terrorists. Possibly the most successful example of the containment of terrorism in the entire history of counter-terrorism would be the British Government's negotiations with the IRA and Sinn Fein.
Where negotiation is not present there is little control.
Military might has never proved wholly successful in this arena. That's why terrorism is utilised,it enables small groups to prove effective against a much greater power.
It's unpalatable but the fact is that most terrorist groups, despicable as their actions are, generally have a legitimate grievance. In the process of empowering and enriching their own countries, most governments have behaved (and continue to behave) appallingly with regard to their foreign policy. Short-term vision is another evil, there seems no end to hasty stop-gap measures which ensure greater problems down the line. That's why we have such a bloody mess on our hands in so many areas.
Military presence, rather than obliterating or controlling the terrorists, makes matters far worse. Again, experience ought to teach us: Brutal force as exhibited in Chechnya, the French 'war on terrorism' in Algeria, and the experience in Vietnam, all proving humiliating for the occupying powers.
Such actions only serve to swell the ranks of the terrorist cells who prey on the young, the angry, fervent and the hopelessly idealistic.
Military presence rather than obliterating the terrorist group or controlling it effectively, merely exacerbates the hostility.
This war in Iraq is unwinnable, it's unjust, as were the sanctions which went before it. The Iraqis have much to hate us for. The balance should have been redressed long, long ago. As I see it, in negotiating a truce there is nothing, at this stage, to lose and much to gain.
Why not stop fantasising and posturing and negotiate??? Recognise that the Western super-powers, to many, are seen as the supreme terrorists (I doubt if most of us were living in Iraq we would be as admiring of the western powers as we might be now) recognise that most of these terrorist groups have some legitimate grievances, sit down and negotiate. For once in history act with justice instead of avarice.
When a huge proportion of the occupying countries' populations condemn the war, Governments should start re-assessing.
It is not true that once negotiatons proceed there will be further demands, The IRA, for example, have held true to their truce for years now, even though the British government has not honored all agreements.
Serious diplomacy sometimes with the most abhorrent people is a necessary reality of modern politics. Should reasonable people, intelligent and informed people (and that includes Muslims) be convinced that the Western democracies had behaved fairly, and worked hard to negotiate fair terms, not only would the terrorist groups have lost support instead of gaining but *if* the worst had happened and the terrorists broke truce, then even I (and many others) would probably have supported war.
As Churchill pointed out, the very best consequence of Chamberlain's 'Appeasement' was that, in being seen to have exhausted all diplomatic and decent means to avoid war, the whole of England swung behind the government and the military to support what they felt was a very necessary action on such a large scale.
As we have it now, we're kicking a dog we've maltreated for a long time, what's the bet it's going to bite us good and hard?
There is a perception that the only way to deal with terrorism is to continue a policy of uncompromising non negotiation. I understand the theory, but the reality is that this policy has never worked. It's a fantasy. Why insist on a repetition of failure???
Wherever terrorism has been dealt with successfully, the policy of diplomacy, negotiation, has always been present. A significant factor in ending Sri Lanka's decades of suicide bombings was indeed negotiating with the terrorists. Possibly the most successful example of the containment of terrorism in the entire history of counter-terrorism would be the British Government's negotiations with the IRA and Sinn Fein.
Where negotiation is not present there is little control.
Military might has never proved wholly successful in this arena. That's why terrorism is utilised,it enables small groups to prove effective against a much greater power.
It's unpalatable but the fact is that most terrorist groups, despicable as their actions are, generally have a legitimate grievance. In the process of empowering and enriching their own countries, most governments have behaved (and continue to behave) appallingly with regard to their foreign policy. Short-term vision is another evil, there seems no end to hasty stop-gap measures which ensure greater problems down the line. That's why we have such a bloody mess on our hands in so many areas.
Military presence, rather than obliterating or controlling the terrorists, makes matters far worse. Again, experience ought to teach us: Brutal force as exhibited in Chechnya, the French 'war on terrorism' in Algeria, and the experience in Vietnam, all proving humiliating for the occupying powers.
Such actions only serve to swell the ranks of the terrorist cells who prey on the young, the angry, fervent and the hopelessly idealistic.
Military presence rather than obliterating the terrorist group or controlling it effectively, merely exacerbates the hostility.
This war in Iraq is unwinnable, it's unjust, as were the sanctions which went before it. The Iraqis have much to hate us for. The balance should have been redressed long, long ago. As I see it, in negotiating a truce there is nothing, at this stage, to lose and much to gain.
Why not stop fantasising and posturing and negotiate??? Recognise that the Western super-powers, to many, are seen as the supreme terrorists (I doubt if most of us were living in Iraq we would be as admiring of the western powers as we might be now) recognise that most of these terrorist groups have some legitimate grievances, sit down and negotiate. For once in history act with justice instead of avarice.
When a huge proportion of the occupying countries' populations condemn the war, Governments should start re-assessing.
It is not true that once negotiatons proceed there will be further demands, The IRA, for example, have held true to their truce for years now, even though the British government has not honored all agreements.
Serious diplomacy sometimes with the most abhorrent people is a necessary reality of modern politics. Should reasonable people, intelligent and informed people (and that includes Muslims) be convinced that the Western democracies had behaved fairly, and worked hard to negotiate fair terms, not only would the terrorist groups have lost support instead of gaining but *if* the worst had happened and the terrorists broke truce, then even I (and many others) would probably have supported war.
As Churchill pointed out, the very best consequence of Chamberlain's 'Appeasement' was that, in being seen to have exhausted all diplomatic and decent means to avoid war, the whole of England swung behind the government and the military to support what they felt was a very necessary action on such a large scale.
As we have it now, we're kicking a dog we've maltreated for a long time, what's the bet it's going to bite us good and hard?
