Tom, I agree that there is no negotiating with Al Qaida, partly for the reasons you describe, and partly because it is not a sufficiently cohesive organisation to be negotiated with as a whole. Therefore, the only way to win against them is to starve them of new recruits and other resources.
I also agree that Bin Laden and suchlike people are not from the poorest of their people. Of course they aren't, because the poorest have no energy to do anything other than scrabble for day-to-day survival. It is the richer individuals from among people who consider themselves oppressed who will take up terrorism (claiming of course to act on behalf of their entire people) because they are the ones that can. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage people to believe they can obtain justice by peaceful means *before* they turn to fanaticism and become immune to rational debate. People are not born fanatics, just as people are not born racists. They become that way as a result of things they learn during their lives. This is somethign which can be changed, perhaps not for those who are already fanatics, but for those who have not yet beome fanatical. Since terrorists are almost always a very small component of the societies from which they come, retaliating to attacks with overwhelming force will almost certainly result in innocent casualties, an increased sense of injustice among the people you retaliate against, and therefore a more plentiful supply of future terrorists. You might kill some, but more take their place. In fact, one of the primary objectives of terrorist attacks is to provoke massive retaliation precisely in order to gain more active recruits. This problem is made even more acute because it is the habit of people all over the world to consider their own losses to have been more important than those suffered by the "enemy". For instance, what is more in your mind, the 3,000 or so people who have died in the 9/11, Madrid and London attacks, or the 100,000 or so Iraqis who have died since the start of the invasion of Iraq? I suspect that you consider the 3,000 to have been much more valuable, and that even though we have killed far more of "them" than "they" have of us, you consider that the latest attack is still something that would justify retaliation in overwhelming force. But that leaves you with the need to consider this. If 50 dead in London in your mind justifies retaliation in overwhelming force, what can you expect people who have lost 100,000 dead to think is a justifiable reaction on their part? Unless you are willing to commit genocide on the entire society from which the terrorists come (which in this case would mean all countries where Islam is the predominant religion), the best that can ever be done using purely military means against terrorists is to fight them to a draw. I want the killing to stop. I want *all* the killing to stop, both of our friends and of our enemies. I am willing to explore whatever means will actually achieve that end. I am not prepared to countenance genocide, but short of genocide the facts demonstrate that force alone will not win. Therefore persuasion *must* be an element of the strategy. Regards Jonathan West _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
