Should the United States give peace a chance in war on terrorism? (surrender to Bin Laden!)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 6, 2004 | John Arquilla

[FairOpinion]

But why should we negotiate at all during this terror war?

Because our scant alternatives look problematic. Outright victory -- i. e., forcing an end to terrorism -- is very unlikely.

So, a treaty to end the terror war could be pretty simple. Bin Laden would make a new videotape ordering an end to global jihad, and we would redeploy our troops out of various Muslim countries. We would insist on the right to continue international police, intelligence and special forces efforts against any terrorist activities -- though we would probably agree, quietly, to end the manhunt for bin Laden in Waziristan..

Now is the right moment for somebody, on either side, to step forward and begin the tortuous process of talking peace.

[eggman]

If we just let him have Austria and maybe part of Czechoslovakia he'll leave us alone. After all, Bin Laden wants peace just like Hitler did. Right after he kills all of the infidels.

[Boazo]

Yeah,Quick!

[Max Combined]

U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey is a nice place to work. This guy is an idiot and should be fired.

[Boazo]

Now,That's FUNNY!

[John Valentine]

What I deride is the notion that some sort of strategic final settlement could be negotiated with the global jihadis, when every single fact on the ground points to its absurdity, futility and utter unobtainability.

I forgot to mention UNDESIRABILITY.

That, first and foremost.

We want the jihadis dead. All of them.

[Happy2BMe]

DHIMMICRATS - "We Must've Done Something For Them To Hate Us"

Uh huh . .

Official Democrat Party Terrorism Policy

Do Nothing Democrats On The War In Terror
By Tamara Wilhite

D = do-nothing democrat, C = concerned citizen

C: What do we do about the terrorists?

D: Do nothing.

C: Shouldn't we be trying to fight them?

D: Certainly not. If we kill them, they'll hate us.

C: Don't they already hate us?

D: That's beside the point. They don't like us, and we can't give them a valid reason for their hatred of us by killing their cohorts.

C: What about the fact that they've been killing us for years?

D: Soldiers volunteered for that when they volunteered for the military, so their deaths don't count unless it furthers our agenda. Conservative black diplomats serving in Africa don't matter. Dead evangelical missionaries get what they asked for - martyrdom. We shouldn't do anything about those idiots who got themselves killed.

C: What should we do if they continue to attack us at home?

D: Nothing! We can't strike back. That would risk enraging the Arab Street.

C: I thought they already hated us.

D: Yes, but striking out at them would breed more terrorists.

C: Aren't they already breeding terrorists?

D: Yes. But the Muslim minority in this nation is very vocal and very active in increasing their numbers by both local production and foreign imports. We can't risk them being angry with us. They're very conservative, but they can be lulled to the Democratic side. Acting against their friends in the Middle East risks them becoming violent in our own streets.

C: Haven't some of those locally born or naturalized citizens sought to act against the US?

D: We can't assume they did anything. We don't have adequate proof yet.

C: Those men from Lackawanna pled guilty.

D: They haven't run out of appeals, so we can't assume that they're guilty.

C: What can we do to defend ourselves from attack?

D: Converting to Islam is a possibility.

C: If we do nothing, we might not be allowed to make that choice willingly.

D: Nonsense! Islam is a religion of peace!

C: The Sunni and Shiite attacks on each other in Iraq and Pakistan are proof that that's not a safe option. They're throwing suicide bombers at other sects of Islam even as they send them at our allies and us.

D: That's a trivial detail. They hate us because we're oppressing them.

C: How are we oppressing them?

D: We're buying their oil!

C: How is that oppressing them?

D: We're bringing capitalism to their socialist dictatorships. Democracy could only be around the corner if that continued.

C: Then how do we stop oppressing them?

D: We should stop buying their oil.

C: Then how will we keep our economy going?

D: We won't. That's part of the beauty of it. We would just do nothing. No oil imports. No problems.

C: Our economy would stall -

D: More Democratic votes.

C: We'd see the transportation network grind to a stop -

D: More people doing nothing, and that would save the environment, too.

C: Shouldn't we build more power plants here, then, to reduce dependence on their oil?

D: Oh, no.

C: Why not?

D: That costs too much.

C: Per your arguments, it would reduce the terrorist motivations.

D: Yes, but it would provide jobs and power. We can't do that.

C: So you vote to turn off the oil imports and to not bother with a replacement fuel source?

D: Of course! Doing nothing about the supply or the demand issues would bring the whole nation to a stop! Imagine it! Everyone doing nothing ... except being motivated to vote for us because we can solve the crisis!

[LibertarianInExile]

Gosh, would that be...bad? I don't know...

[sarcasm]

What does that have to do with the speculation in the article? This is about possible outcomes for the war on terror--not about letting the doors open for terrorism. I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than nukes bad, terror bad, terrorism bad. Duh. I don't dispute that. I don't even dispute that a negotiated peace with Bin Laden would be worthless. I just don't know that there will be an end to the war on terror, negotiated or not, and I don't see how his discussion of it is any more stupid than announcing that we were Vietnamizing.

[markman46]

can't keep up a little too ripe for me hehe

[FairOpinion]

Yes, it makes you wonder how we would ever have been able to fight WW II, if the current peacenik/leftists have been around then.

[Boazo]

[reloader]

Here is an example of muslim deal making.

.."At this time, the Muslim Turks were ravaging Eastern Europe. Recall that in 1453, Constantinople had fallen to the Muslims, leaving the Balkans and Hungary open to conquest. In 1521, they had conquered Belgrade, Hungary, and by 1526, they were at the gates of Vienna, Austria. With Muslims raiding even the coast of Italy, the control of the Mediterranean was now at stake.

In February 1570, the Turkish Ambassador delivered an ultimatum to the Republic of Venice: surrender the island of Cyprus peacefully or face war. Venice refused, and after 11 months of war, Cyprus fell to Muslim control in 1571. The surrender terms provided for the safety of the defeated Christian army. However, once the Muslim commander took control of the city, he ordered that the Christian commander, Marcantonio Bragadin, be skinned alive. His body was then quartered, and his skin was stuffed with straw, dressed in his uniform, and dragged throughout the city. The Christians now knew well what kind of enemy they were facing."

Nothing has changed, They would do this in a heartbeat if they could put the pieces in place. ..

[FairOpinion]

Excellent!

I bet that is exactly how the Dems are thinking.

How sad for the nation.

[asmith92008]

We probably shouldn't surrender, but some olive branches might work. We could throw Hillary, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of power and in some burkas. The Left should think of that as a small price for peace.

[Travis McGee]

Aquilla needs to lay off the LSD.

[Smartass]

Good one...

[Victoria Delsoul]

Should the United States give peace a chance in war on terrorism? (surrender to Bin Laden!)

Most definitely. We'd sleep peacefully in the comfort of our homes. I don't know why we bother with this harmless guy.

[Smartass]

[HungarianGypsy]

Here's how it works if everything was followed according to the article's description. We surrender. Candy is thrown around in the ME as the evil monster (US) has been toppled. The next day they kill us on our own soil. Great plan!

[Max Combined]

John Arquilla earned his degrees in international relations from Rosary College (BA, 1975) and Stanford University (MA, 1989; Ph.D., 1991). He is an associate professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

His ideas have also reached broad general audiences in publications including: Time, The Economist, The New Republic, Wired, Le Monde, and Al-Hayat; and in appearances on all the major television networks.

http://www.treemedia.com/roundtable/arquilla.html

Looks like he is well respected by the New Republic, Le Monde, and Al-Hayat.

[Max Combined]

Our tax money at work!