Comments?
Why
we should take Osama's olive branch
It's
the first step in winning the peace
by John
Arquilla, San Fransisco Chronicle, Sunday, January 29, 2006
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
