"Negotiation" with terrorists and other bad guys goes on all the time at the tactical level. I have no problem with that if the battlefield commanders feel there is something to be gained and less to be lost from local arragngements with warlords, opium growers, smugglers or whatever.
The case of the Palestininans can be distinguished from general islamic global jihad by the fact that they are at least a quasi nation with territorial ambitions that could conceivably be tempted by some sort of compromise.
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.
The case of the Palestininans can be distinguished from general islamic global jihad by the fact that they are at least a quasi nation with territorial ambitions that could conceivably be tempted by some sort of compromise.
--I see your point, but couldn't the same things be said by Islamists in general? I would be surprised if Bin Laden didn't claim quasi-nation status for the Islamic community or have territorial ambitions for it. Your differentiation is one that the Islamist might not readily make and would thus consider themselves equally deserving of a place at the table in what would be the most recent Munich accord.
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 don't disagree that there is Chamberlainesque naivete in the negotiation idea. But as the end of any 'war against terror' seems equally likely to be, as I've stated, a Powellish declaration of victory that is as empty as the victory of Gulf War I...which is more stupid over the long haul? Claiming a worthless negotiation worked, or that 'we won and the war is over' if we obviously didn't and it obviously ain't? I assert they are equally so, and the latter is perhaps more dangerous, as there is no line drawn in the sand. For example, even Munich resulted in Hitler saying he'd made his last territorial claims in Europe--which meant when Poland was invaded, the die was cast.