Question for MCL and SMf
I'm moving a point in the "France..." entry, largely because I have the power, and I love to wield my power.
Reading the posts in that entry, I wonder if MCL and SMf view terrorism as a viable means of gaining legitimate political power? The notion of rewarding Hezbollah by giving them political power opens the door to all terrorist thinking its the way to go. The standard protocol is don't negotiate or pay-off terrorists, but is this changing? I remember SMf railing against the UN for allowing Libya to chair of the Human Rights Body. There was no talk of forgiveness, legitimizing, or the need for peace then, what's changed? If Bin Laden succeeds in overthrowing the Saudi royal family, should we try to "take away his ferociousness" by recognizing his legitimate authority in Saudi Arabia? This is not a new point. It often pointed out that the US "patriots" were "rebels" until they won. And that southern "rebels" were "traitors" because they lost, so I get the thinking. But this terrorism vein is new. SMf, do you feel that Hezbollah is just a modern version of GW and the gang? Certainly "threads" exist. If so, I get your point and see why you don't have a problem legitimizing this group. Maybe the question isn't about Hezbollah in particular, but the use of terrorism in general?
Also, I did add another comment to the "France" section, please don't disregard. I know the front page is all splashy, but the behind the scenes efforts mean something too.
Posts
6 comments:
I think you have shown the biggest weakness in the "peace at all costs" strategy. It may very well encourage violence. This would show why many conservatives speak of "peace through strength". If you are sure you will get smacked for it, you probably won't do it. This makes sense to me.
However, I do question in the case of a group like Hezbollah that represents a range of sentiments from violent thug to welfare bureaucrat if co-opting rather than killing the thugs wouldn't achieve peace more quickly. I would rather see the thugs shot down in the street, but when that proves very difficult, why not move to marginalize them in their own organization?
Does this give a green light to future thugs to brutalize their way to legitimacy? Perhaps, it worked for Arafat, but if they loose out in the end to the civilized wing of their organizations would that embolden the civilized to grab control of other groups?
I would love to see a world in which terrorism made no sense, but I don't see that happening any time soon. We throw that word around so often, yet I wonder if we'd all even be able to agree on a definition. I often think of it as the targeting of civilians for violence, but then clearly every nation on the planet has been a terrorist organization at some point. So perhaps a more sophisticated definition is needed.
What makes Hezbollah so interesting as a test case is that they do have their charity arm and it’s for real. Especially the hospital arm. Without knowing the stats, my bet is that people that run hospitals are generally on peace side of the fence (at least according to M*A*S*H). Does Syria pulling out, and the political legitimization of Hezbollah, give the peace arm the chance to say, "Why are we still fighting, we have what we want?" Probably, but then the question becomes, "Is this voice strong enough." I think that those in charge of the killing division of Hezbollah have much to lose personally by putting down their weapons. The strength and power of killing is hard to get working at the Quick-E Mart. My concern is that after the revolution, those with guns tend to try to consolidate their power, not walk away from it. However, I don't know enough about their support base to even try to gauge which way the supporters will go. My instinct here is to wait and see how this will shake out. Perhaps the continual denial of legitimate Hezbollah will cause the peaceful arms of the organization to break-off. Then the world can quickly support this new group. I absolutely love this idea of forgiving Hezbollah, and then they go on to become a legitimate representative party. Warring nations sign truces and move on. Forgiveness is a powerful tool, and sometimes, one party as to take the risk. If neither side trusts the other, how can they possibly forgive each other? A noble US can afford to take such a risk.
However, in the end, I think we need to support our ally Israel and take our cue from them. If they are willing to forgive, then I see no reason why we should carry the grudge. If Israel balks at legitimization, we should as well. I also have no problem in treating different terrorist organizations differently. We can forgive Hezbollah one day, and destroy Islamic Jihad the next. It’s a complex world with complex relationships.
As far as what is “terrorism?” I’m tempted to use Justice Potter Stewart’s line, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . .” but I’ve always thought that that was a cop out. I used to think of the word in regards to criminals killing for money or to further criminal activity. Think Dr. Evil here. It morphed into the tool of small groups acting against a government. It was hard to call them “rebels” because they did not represent much of the population. Now that some of these groups grew more sophisticated and expanded their reach (think Hezbollah, which started out as a small group and now has their own TV channel), they may no longer be terrorists, but in fact rebels. It’s just that they never got recategorized. So is local legitimacy, reach, or voice the differentiator between terrorist and rebel? Probably not the only factor, but I do think its part of the equation. Does this mean you can graduate from terrorist to rebel to political party? I think so. But I also think that this is an extremely rare occurrence, and guessing wrong can be very, very damaging.
Stalinmalone is right. its not a question of justice, as neocon as I am, realism has to play a role, if the region will be a more peaceful place by bringing thugs into the game, than you let the thugs in.
Ok, but would either of you acknowledge Al Qaeda as a legitmate political party, and Bin Laden as its leader if they manage to overthrow Saudi Arabia? What if he offered to sign a truce?
Bin Laden is beyond the pale of our thug-forgiving implications. He is the Charles Manson of the international scene and nothing he could deliver to us would justify his being "forgiven". No, a Bin Laden led organisation would never qualify for this peace approach.
Now, it is possible that within Al Qaeda a political wing could rise up and challenge the militants (they would then be competing against Bin Laden). If they were to take control and marginalize Bin Laden then I could see Al Qaeda bing given legitimacy. Of course, they would have to turn over Bin Laden before they were given legitimacy.
I share your anger towards Binny, but I wonder if Jews living in Israel feel that same exact way towards Hezbollah? Binny killed 3500 Americans out of a population of 290 million; Hezbollah's attacks on Israel may be even more devastating. Yet, you’re willing to forgive these thugs for peace but not Binny. While I view Binny as the worst of the worst, I'm betting that's because he hit me. I'm equally as sure that someone in another country may view another terrorist as the worst of the worst because Terrorist X hit them. While I have no problem saying "Hey, we need to forgive Hezbollah, and invite them into the process before they marginalize the terrorist, or have to give any of them up,” I'm not sure that has a realistic chance given we would not do the same.
Post a Comment