- Think upon Homer's character Achilles. Specifically what
is it that killed Achilles? His heel? No, in the end, it is his pride that did him
in.
- Do we face the same flaw of pride, when considering
counterterrorism? Are we too proud, arrogant, or boastful to even consider negotiation?
- Ask: Which is more heroic, to continue a fight out of
embarrassment and fear, or to talk to our enemies?
- Is it possible for the goliath in the theatre to pursue
wisdom in NOT using maximum violence and force to compel its enemies, especially when
other options are known to exist?
- Lose not sight of Sun Tzu.
|
|
- Suppose a terrorist organization, such as Al Qaeda cannot
be imagined to surrender. This does not mean that they could not be backed into a position
where they think surrender is a viable option, especially if they think it might better
advance their goals and intentions, or address their gripes.
- One impact of taking an "under no conditions"
approach to negotiations with terrorist organizations, is we fashion a self-fulfilling
prophecy for the terrorists. It lends credibility to the terrorists' claim "all other
options have been tried and failed".
- The more fragmented a terrorist organization becomes,
especially in a decentralized structure, the easier it should become, for negotiations to
succeed. For instance, negotiaing with Al Qaeda Central may still prove fruitless, but Al
Qaeda Bosnia, Algeria, or Iraq may actually succeed. These splinter organizations bring to
the table different immediate political circumstances that are "on the ground."
They might feel that they actually represent the vanguard, and ahead of Al Qaeda Central,
living in caves, in this, who might be perceived as "out of touch" with what
"we" are going through.
|
