Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Never Negotiate with Terrorists
Do you remember who was the first person to say we should never negotiate with terrorists?—
America will never make concessions to terrorists–to do so would only invite more terrorism- nor will we ask or pressure any other government to do so. Once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay.
President Ronald Reagan made this statement in 1985 when TWA Flight 847 was hijacked. Although the U.S. was closely monitoring this terrorist act, we did not participate in negotiations.
Then we see President Barack Obama supposedly not negotiating with terrorists for the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl in 2014:
The difference with Bergdahl, as Obama argues, is that he wasn’t really a hostage grabbed by terrorists. He pretty neatly fit the classic definition of a prisoner of war. He had just left a military outpost in an obvious war zone while (presumably) wearing his uniform. History is loaded with examples of nations—including America—making deals to free their soldiers.
And however nasty the Taliban may be, it’s not really a “terrorist” enemy as we commonly understand the word. The group is not on the State Department’s official list of terrorist organizations and has long been a battlefield enemy in the ground war for control of Afghanistan. It is not plotting to, say, hijack American airplanes—even if it does have sympathies with people who are. [my bold]
Many of us would agree that Obama did negotiate with terrorists; funny how events and labels can change in the face of our abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban.
We are now in the position, because of our disastrous decisions in Afghanistan, of having to negotiate with the Taliban. No matter how many times Jen Psaki tries to wordsmith “negotiate,” the results are the same.
* * * *
Whatever you want to call our collaboration with the Taliban, a group that we are now dependent on to allow the flying of citizens and allies out of the country, there is a major concern that no one has addressed regarding the reliability of the Taliban: taqqiya. The terrorists embrace the practice of taqqiya, and it could dangerously compromise our working with them. Here are a couple of definitions:
Quran (3:28) – This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to ‘guard themselves’ against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (66:2) – ‘Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…’ For today’s reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: ‘if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow.’ (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as ‘doing good’).
The message from the Koran is loud and clear, according to Muslim extremists: lying is okay, and Allah does not object to lying.
* * * *
Now we find ourselves in the position of having to work with terrorists who are willing to lie to justify their actions. We have no reason to believe that they will follow through on any of their agreements. We have no reason to think that they are telling us the truth regarding their treatment of citizens or allies. We have no reason to think that they will not harbor terrorists like al Qaeda who have already attacked us in our own country; I’m quite confident that the Haqqani network will be happy to help them out in executing foreign attacks.
Who knows what demands they are making, or will make in the future, to get what they need and want? Why should they value the lives of our countrymen and allies when they do not value life but instead celebrate martyrdom? What makes us think that they will change their “transition government” to a group of people more acceptable to us? In fact, why should they do anything that is acceptable to us?
I see no other choice than our sending in military in some way that we can at least temporarily put the Taliban on their heels. Otherwise, our losses may very well be more deadly than we can imagine.
Congress must act. Now.
Do you have other strategies we could try?
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Quibble — the military should ONLY be used to kill people and break things, but this should be in the clear, declared service of a strategic purpose. The strategy should support a diplomatic purpose, but so long as the military is not expected to build schools and guard foreign borders, fine.
Right. Military succes, strategic failure. Although, I confess that I defended it at the time. I believed things then that I no longer do.
So, I have some quibble with this. IMHO, the Taliban was winning the battle for the hearts and minds of our erstwhile allies there. The people we were funding, equipping, training, and entrusting with our intel, and with leadership in combined ops. But my knoweldge is out of date. This is just what I think.
I think that the thing was failing in a way that allowed the Taliban to consolidate their gains not in physical territory, but in human territory. They have been winning this war for a long time, and it finally became untenable.
This thing has been doomed for a decade, as I said long ago (and recently linked to).
Right. The Taliban are not stupid, and they were winning even then.
You’re right they didn’t.
And you think loses are final. End of history thinking.
At what point did the government of the Soviet Union become legitimate and then we recognized it?
At what point did the government of the People’s Republic of China become legitimate and then we recognized it?
We did not recognize them because of legitimacy but because it was in our interests. We have one and only one national interest in Afghanistan at the moment: monitoring terrorist activities directed towardsus and our allies. We have potential future interests that may be in parallel with Afghanistan : the Uighurs.
It’s just over the next hill, boys!
So then we don’t have to recognize the Taliban.
So why did the West fail? What did we do wrong?
Defeat is bitter, it’s true, but to keep from tasting it again we need to ask some questions that don’t have comfortable answers. Imho.
We lost for a whole host of reasons.
I do not know all the reasons. Whether the military and the elites can do a proper autopsy is doubtful. Everything is euphemisms with them. Spin. And what’s worse they probably believe it.
There is no reason to depend on the military or the elites to do that investigation. The Fourth Estate, imho, is a formidable tool – and many among them are looking at this. Some with more intellectual cred than others, I grant you, but it’s not nothing.