|
Comments? Why
we should take Osama's olive branch John
Arquilla is professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
in Monterey, California. Osama bin Laden's
offer of a truce has sunk from sight without leaving a ripple, but it should
have made waves. When the audiotaped
proposal was made 10 days ago, the White House dismissed it out of hand. That
was a politically logical move, given the need to appear tough on terror at all
times. An image of strength and determination may be particularly important in
the months ahead because Republican Party leaders have put security issues at
the heart of their 2006 congressional election campaign strategy. But there are reasons
why bin Laden's overture should be carefully weighed and thoughtfully debated. The moral imperative that should drive us is a sincere desire
to end the long suffering of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Official
figures suggest that 30,000 innocent noncombatants have been killed since March
2003 in Iraq alone. Many respected sources believe that this figure is grossly
underestimated. So if bin Laden were
to call off his dogs of war, it would be a very good thing, saving lives by
removing major elements in the insurgencies in both countries. Such al Qaeda
withdrawals would sharply reduce the need for our forces to remain in these sad
lands. Peace would also prove
a boon to our standing, both in the Muslim world and throughout the
international community, where, after initial agreement with our attack on
terrorists in Afghanistan, serious fissures erupted over the propriety (and
legality) of our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. From a more pragmatic point of view, peace makes good strategic sense. Ending the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq
would reduce the huge strain imposed on the U.S. military, tying it down and
seriously impairing its ability to respond swiftly to new crises, such as those
that might arise on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere. Our withdrawals would
also end the financial losses and steady flow of casualties. These two
conflicts have already cost us more than $300 billion, more than 2,000 dead and
more than 15,000 wounded. The practical political consequences of the pursuit of peace might be
favorable, too. Instead of being ridiculed, those leaders in both parties who
support a just peace -- if they work together -- could be praised for such a
noble undertaking. Who knows? The bitter partisanship that characterizes so
much of our public discourse today might actually be tamped down. There was bipartisan
support for President Richard Nixon's overture to China during the Vietnam War,
and for President Ronald Reagan's peace summits with Mikhail Gorbachev that
ended the Cold War. President Bush could follow in their footsteps with a
more-than-reasonable expectation of similar backing. Respected Democrats like
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania would
probably be chief cheerleaders. If any serious
discussion of peace negotiations is rekindled, though, count on three
objections: 1. We cannot violate our policy of no negotiations with terrorists.
2. It's impossible to negotiate with a dispersed network like al Qaeda. and 3.
Osama bin Laden's peace offer is a ruse. The first objection falls of its own
weight. Bush has
already overseen a negotiated peace deal with Libya's Moammar Khadafy, a
longtime terrorist supporter with a lot of American blood on his hands. But the
president has looked beyond this to craft what appears to be a durable peace
with him. Now U.S. oil companies are exploring new opportunities with Libya,
and Khadafy has become something of a poster boy for penitent terrorists. There are other
examples of negotiations with terrorists throughout American history. Two
hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson bargained with the Barbary pirates (the
Muslim terrorists of their day) while at the same time the Navy and Marines put
military pressure on them. Twenty years ago, Reagan dealt with Iran in an
effort to win the freedom of hostages held in Lebanon by militants supported by
Tehran. It seems that negotiation -- even with terrorists -- is in our bloodstream.
Still, many think it's
impossible to negotiate with a network, particularly one like al Qaeda that has
at best only loose affiliations with cells and nodes operating in more than 60
countries. What
if nobody listens to bin Laden? Well, if he isn't heeded, then the war must
simply go on. But the reality is bin Laden remains a charismatic figure. His wishes will guide a substantial
portion of his followers. As to those who would
defy his call for a truce, we can defeat them one by one. This task would be made easier, as a peace
deal with al Qaeda would restore our standing in the world and galvanize our
counterterror coalition anew.
Absent bin Laden loyalists, the rest of the war on terror would be a mop-up
operation against scattered splinter groups. What if this peace
feeler is a ruse? If it is, our interest clearly lies in calling bin Laden's
bluff. We'll know soon enough if he's sincere about wanting to end the
insurgencies, and we can tie our troop withdrawals to the cessation of violence
perpetrated by foreign fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what if bin Laden
sincerely seeks peace in those two countries but wants to continue the war in
other parts of the world? So be it. We and our revitalized allies will simply
confront his minions wherever they go, on ever more favorable terms. We have already beaten al Qaeda affiliates
in campaigns from the Philippines to Saharan Africa, and our European allies
continue to roll up al Qaeda cells operating there. The advantage will be with
us if bin Laden tries to open up new fronts. In sum, the practical
upside of giving peace a chance looks very attractive. Our ethical obligation
to try in good faith to negotiate is even more compelling. Twenty months ago, I
suggested in Insight that an era of perpetual warfare need not be our only
future and observed that the peace process might begin simply with the release
of a conciliatory tape by Osama bin Laden. He has just done this. Now it's our turn.
Reconsidering the immediate dismissive response to his overture is the
necessary next step. I pray we have the courage and compassion to take it. John
Arquilla is professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
in Monterey. The views expressed are his alone. Contact us at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/29/INGHSGSE591.DTL |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
