Can you negotiate with al-Qaeda?

There are only so many alternatives available to us in the fix we’ve found ourselves in after September 11, 2001. These range from the ultra-soft stance—there is no such thing as radical Islamist terrorism—that’s gained some currency in Europe and the Left in the United States to the ultra-hard stance—nuke ’em all—that will occasionally appear in the comments sections of some blogs. Taking these views from soft to hard:

  1. There’s nothing to do.
  2. If only the United States changes its policies, the situation will resolve itself.
  3. Whatever needs to be done can be done through negotiations.
  4. It’s primarily a law-enforcement and intelligence matter.
  5. It’s a law-enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and military matter but military action should only be taken when authorized by the United Nations Security Council.
  6. It’s a law-enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and military matter and we’ll take military action as we see fit to reduce al-Qaeda.
  7. It’s a law-enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and military matter and we’ll take military action as we see fit to reduce al-Qaeda or replace uncooperative or undemocratic regimes. Democratic societies won’t provide an environment in which al-Qaeda can endure.
  8. It’s a war of civilizations: them or us.

In a recent article from Front Page Magazine (hat tip: The Moderate Voice) author Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior terrorism analyst with the Investigative Project, casts doubt on the first three alternatives. His response to Western scholars and politicians who believe that the recent taped messages attributed to Osama bin Laden represent overtures to negotiation is that they are mistaken. He concludes:

Al-Qaeda has again turned to deception as a means of gaining a strategic advantage in its war against the West. Although many continue to fall for the terrorists’ claims of reasonableness and a limited agenda, al-Qaeda has repeatedly made its true endgame clear: re-establishing a caliphate ruled according to Taliban-style Islamic law, re-conquering all formerly Muslim lands, and preparing Islamic super-state for perpetual conflict with the West. Ignore their true agenda at your own peril.

6 comments… add one
  • praktike Link

    Does anyone actually believe in negotiation with Al Qaeda?

  • The article I cited mentions Britain’s former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam and U.S. Naval Postgraduate School professor John Arquilla. And there have been mentions of the same notion in MSM and blogs after the last couple of OBL tapes.

  • Praktike,

    Here’s a good example of pushing for some form of negotiations with al Qaida.

    http://hnn.us/articles/6639.html

  • I notice that “diplomacy” seems to be missing from your continuum.

    I’m not advocating discussions with AQ. What I see instead is using diplomacy as part of a holistic approach to dealing with AQ and potential AQ sympathizers.

    If, for example, AQ is trying to earn sympathizers by assaulting a specific element of U.S. policy, perhaps that policy can be revised or explained, not as a matter of caving to terrorists, but as a way to undercut AQ’s argument for support.

    –|PW|–

  • I notice that “diplomacy” seems to be missing from your continuum.

    Other than options 3, 4, 5, and 6 you’re right. Option 3 is diplomacy i.e. negotations alone. Note that options 4, 5, and 6 include diplomacy. I guess I didn’t express myself clearly enough.

  • You might want to stick in 7.5–establishing forcible rule over Arab nations until we’ve educated them to the point they can handle self-rule.

Leave a Comment