Steven Den Beste has another typically long and typically thought-provoking post on Asymmetric Diplomacy.
If there is a fundamental disagreement, and negotiations lead to an agreement, then it means someone has given in. Most commonly both sides give up something, but it is quite often the case that one side gives up a lot more than the other does.
The idealist view is that it should be the “bad guys” who give up a lot, but that’s not what really happens. Rather, the side with the weaker negotiating position will nearly always be the one to make the most concessions if agreement is reached.
He goes on to observe that concepts like fairness, responsibility, and correctness are not particularly relevant to a negotiation. And that Old Europe has erred in our negotiations.
One of the most interesting things I learned in studying the theory of negotiation is that a lack of options is a position of strength. When there is only one acceptable alternative a negotiator will stick to that position whatever else may come. When both sides recognize this it’s a position of strength for the party with a lack of alternatives.
To understand this concept consider the situation that Israel is in. It’s simply not conceivable that Israel will negotiate its own existence away–whether that negotiation takes the form of ceding its own territory to the Palestinians or the so-called “right of return” or disarmament. Both sides know this whether they acknowledge it rhetorically or not. It provides a baseline for any negotiations and, therefore, a position of strength for Israel in those negotations.
Old Europe doesn’t understand how few options we have in the War on Terror. We aren’t going to close our borders. We aren’t going to withdraw from the world. It’s politically impossible for us to stop supporting Israel even if we felt that it were the right thing to do–which we don’t. We aren’t going to accept 9/11-style attacks again and again. And we can’t prevent them 100% of the time. Even one attack by a nuclear-armed terrorist would be too many.
So what options do we have? Regardless of what has been said we can prevent nations that support terrorists from developing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons. The equation is simple: no nation = no nuclear-armed nation that supports terrorists.
We’re not embarked on that plan now. We are attempting to foster the creation of societies in the Middle East that don’t create such desperation in its citizens that they long for death if that death furthers whatever fantasy outcome they imagine. That’s what we’re trying to do in Iraq.
If Old Europe and, for that matter, anti-war demonstrators and politicians here, sincerely want to prevent our reducing the Middle East to rubble, they should be supporting us without reservations. Because we don’t have many options.
And we’re in a position of strength.
Well stated and absolutely true. Which begs the question, why doesn’t our government formally state this policy and force militant Islam, and its rogue nation supporters, to choose between one of two futures:
a) Acceptance of a pluralistic, liberal democratic civilization with separation of mosque and state, complete religious, economic, and political freedom, and an absolute prohibition on terrorist acts;
OR
b) Total war with the United States and its allies on the scale of World War II, or beyond, resulting in the probable destruction of ninety percent of the Islamic population of the planet as well as the destruction of any non-Islamic states that support them.
The cold, hard reality of the world power balance is very simple: 1.2 billion Muslims are just 1.2 billion targets once we decide to mobilize our full power and use it ruthlessly. The US mobilized ten percent of its population for active military service in WW II. There is no reason we could not do that today. And our major allies could mobilize on a similar scale, as they also did in WW II. For the US alone, that translates to a military of 30 million troops. Our military controls space, the air, the sea, and any ground we put several divisions on. And, it is supported by strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and can be supported by chemical and biological weapons. If we give our troops the same rules of engagement that militant Islam applies to us, there will be nothing left of our enemies in three years.
We are not trapped on Earth with militant Islam and its state supporters, militant Islam and its state supporters are trapped on Earth with us.
Regards,
Jim
WRT why does the Bush administration dance around the real policy with its “War on Terror” mallogisms, etc. I believe they would give this movie line: “The truth; you can’t handle the truth.” I have zero expertise in public relations with which to judge this. But I would expect the truth will have to start coming out sooner or later, perhaps after the election.
Jim, the Islamists are not our only enemy. America had the privilege of being unified in W.W.II; it did not have an internal opposition– a fifth column. The Republicans in ’44 did not campaign that Roosevelt was losing the war. They could have easily, but it would have sabotaged the war effort.
America is not united now. The Leftists in the Democratic Party don’t care if America loses the War on Terror. They have persuaded themselves that it is not real; that it is just a Republican election ploy; that the Islamists can be bribed into going away. They, like the new Government in Spain, must learn the hard way that this is not so.
As satisfying as it would feel America cannot afford an “either/ or” strategy; it cannot be too heavy-handed. The president dances around with the War on Terror, because the public is not ready to get serious, yet. The War on Terror is a multigenerational war much like the Cold War. The Arab culture will not change overnight; it will continue to produce martyrs. Thus, we will for decades be vulnerable to attack.
The Bush Doctrine will not change even when the Democrats regain the presidency. A foreign policy Doctrine, like the Truman Doctrine before it, takes on it own pattern and unfolds in its own time. And each succeeding president is held to it. When Truman, assumed the Presidency after FDR’s death, he found that Roosevelt had given away at the Yalta and Tehran conferences enormous powers and tracts of land to the Soviets. The Communists were poised to win elections in Greece and Italy in ’48, so Western Europe seemed ready to fall into their grasp. Even the American society and government had been infiltrated. It took time and effort to reverse that. We are in a similar situation in our War on Terror today. Many people are not taking it seriously.
The Cold War is over, but we have yet to adjust to the new realities. The Social Democrats of “Old Europe” believed that they could rule the world through the UN using US military might. When they ascertained that President Bush wouldn’t do this, they went into in a snit that they have yet to recover from. Our native Social Democrats, the left of the Democratic Party, have attempted after 9/11 to sabotage the War Effort and regain political power. But, they fool only themselves, because they have declined politically since 1976 as true believers in socialism have died off. The Left has no vision– no solutions. Their only agendum is to dump Bush. The wars on terror and in Iraq are going well despite Media propaganda to the contrary. The economy is improving so much that soon even the press can’t ignore it. Since the Democrats offer so little alternative the voters won’t give them power.
The Truman Doctrine didn’t take its final form– containment and deterrence of the Soviet Empire– until the Eisenhower Administration, so it is foolish to expect too much too soon.
The War on Terror is being fought on many fronts. Al Qaeda is on the run, but our enemies will not be placated. Dark days lie ahead. We will be forced to change ourselves and the world in ways yet undetermined. But, Democracy, Open Markets and Freedom will win. They have been the major trends of the last two hundred years.
Instead of all – what the United States needs to do is take one town at a time in Iraq –
Temporarily move all of the people out of the town bomb the heck out of it – destroying the Islamic people who do not apparently believe in God per their actions and will end up in Hell per their actions and so why save them –
then return the people to the town and start rebuilding the town –
Then go on to the next town in Iraq and do the same thing until we have bombed every single town –
The method that we are doing this – Is not working as the Islamic terroists are just moving from town to town –
Iran is probably the cause of most of the uprising in Iraq –
I do not know why our government does not see this –
We need to show them that we mean business and bomb their Nuclear facilities as who really knows what they plan to do –
Can we really believe them?
There is new technology that our government has with the use of solar panels that will provide the needed electricity for any country –
think about it what is providing electricity on the Space Station.
To the United States – Please Bomb the heck out of Iran and Iraq -Then and only then will our soldiers be able to come home –
This is the way that I see it – Mike