The Powell doctrine

mark

History shows us that in most conflicts, ultimately, you get round the table. Applies to terrorism (mandate Palestine, Northern Ireland for example) and civil strife (strikes for example).

But it is not universally true - we kept fighting WW2 in both theaters until the other side were completely defeated. And past terrorist groups have had rational demands - are the current Islamic terrorist (and Iran?) groups rational or not? I guess that is the issue and will determine if we fight to the bitter end or at some point pull up the chairs.

THX1138

Does anyone seriously think that we aren't talking to them right now?

Ian C

The west has no quarrel with the Islamists except that they attack us. There is nothing to discuss with them as they do not have a practical political agenda, although they are motivated politically in some respect, nor represent an identifiable political body. They are 'stateless' and represent only themselves. We have spoken in the past only to those who do have the things that the Islamists lack. There is no conversation that can nor needs to be held.

John Ionides

I think that Powell is spot on; we should be talking to these guys. That doesn't mean that we should be agreeing, or yielding to them in the slightest (or even, for that matter, admit publicly to be in contact). But not talking to them achieves nothing at all.

The Laughing Cavalier

Al Qaeda and the Taleban aren't even on the same planet as the rest of us. If Jonathan Powell thinks one can talk sensibly to them then he must be on another one. As 'mark' says, we didn't talk to the Nazis because there was nothing to talk about; there was no choice but to fight to the bitter end and the same will prove to be true of the islamo-fascists.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Powell 'solved' the Northern Ireland problem by handing the government over to a bunch of murderers who had nothing but contempt for his weakness.

Austin Barry

We are infidels and the Islamists want us dead, converted or reduced to dhimmi-status. So what is there to discuss? Any conversation should start with and be limited to two words.

Ann

Mark, don't talk such nonsense. Palestine did not involve terrorists, but the indigenous population fighting against the --military-- of the foreign occupying force.

Powell's argument is that of an indignant 14-year old, which is clearly where his intellectual development stopped (like most of the people in government since 1997). Trumpeter has got it pegged just right, so has Austin.

mark

Ann - thanks for the comment - I didn't want to go down the cliched route of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - but looks like we'll have to explore that a little.

At the end of the day, the use of armed force against a civilian population is terrorism - its aim is to terrorise and (normally) bring about change - depending on your world view this action will be justified, or not, defined as terrorism or legitimate resistance, or not - and so on.

As some of the posters have said (and which I tried to point out) a key issue will be whether we can negotiate with the bad guys in this case to bring about change/peace, or whether in fact no process is possible.

My guess is that as we sit round our tables debating the point it is all conjecture and opinion - we do not KNOW what is in the mind of the other side.

And is their one "side" - or many.........? sigh...

Diablo

A few weeks ago Des Browne was arguing that we need to talk to the Taleban and Al Quaeda. I commented at the time that these groups were not like the IRA - they just want to subjugate anyone who does not suscribe to their extreme Islamist world view.

We tried to negotiate with that nice Mr Hitler but that did not get us very far. Why Powell thinks we can "jaw-jaw" with what are probably clinically insane sociopaths beats me?

London Calling

The idea that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is as old as war itself. In the First World War Irish republicans sought German military aid, to win Irish Freedom against the British.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/68249?print_page=true

The British monarchy, and the City of London's leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Führer's election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, for Britain's planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia.
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm

British and American bankers continued to do business with Hitler, even as Germany was invading Europe and bombing London.
Banking On Hitler
From the BBC Timewatch series
http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/BankingHitler.htm

Who's War? Who's Agenda?

Who is worshipping the Beast?

Knowingly or unknowingly,

We all are....

The "magic square of the sun," was one of the most important symbols used to represent the sun in antiquity because of all the symbolism it possessed involving the perfect number "6." There are six sides to a cube, the numbers 1, 2, an 3, when added or multiplied together are equal to "6," and the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 36 arranged in a 6x6 magic square are equal to the number "666

Sun = Power

http://www.jesus8880.com/gematria/666.htm

Lee Jakeman

Powell ignores the fact that the IRA has never questioned Britain's right to exist, nor has it ever called for outright genocide of the British. You can't say the same for the Islamofascists who demand nothing less than Israel's extinction and consider Jews, all Jews, all over the world, as "fair game" for attack and murder. When we fought Hitler and the Japanese, we demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender - and that's what we got. Why should it be "different" now?

Dirk Blade

There is too much focus in the west on *process* and very little discussion of the output. *Why* are we talking? What do we want from them?

And, as Trumpeter etc have pointed out, it presupposes negotiable demands. This is more 'sophistication' - in its literal sense - and the same sort of preening moral relativism that got us into the mess in the first place. It doesn't *look* like strength: it looks like timidity, and that signals our weakness of resolve.

And mark, I think you've fallen into a typical trap when you say terrorism is "use of armed force against a civilian population". No - it's non-combatants that you need to avoid. The IRA, the Sadr militia et al are civilians, and murderous criminal civilians at that. But they have won significant battles by persuading the media to call them 'armies' and 'fighters'. Powell is a particularly egregious case of this cringe, and repeatedly calls IRA terrorists 'volunteers'. He might be trying to demonstrate his deep knowledge of Republicanism by using such terms, but, even if this is not merely more craven moral equivalence from the British establishment, it is a very damaging and self-destructive tendency.

Anon

The man's an idiot.

The IRA were already beaten, no more money and no support after 9/11 but what do they do?

Hand them pots of money and positions of power, pathetic appeasement by a spineless Gvnt.

Has the violence stopped? No it hasn't, just not that many people get shot anymore, just beaten with baseball bats full of six inch nails.

As for negotiating with the Taliban, fine if you think surrender is the option to take.

mark

Dirk - you commented "And mark, I think you've fallen into a typical trap when you say terrorism is "use of armed force against a civilian population". No - it's non-combatants that you need to avoid"

Not sure I understand the point - but I was not trying to confer any legitimacy on the other side by calling them an "army" - I agree they are civilians. What I was refering to was the actions - shooting or blowing up civilians is the use of armed force in my view. And yes the media et al shoudl be calling it what it is - perhaps "today in Baghdad 20 people were murdered in an explosion caused by terrorists" ??

Anyway - I think we are violently agreeing ..

London Calling

The King of Terror was crowned on 9/11 and the reign of Terror
escalated its cause following when Islamists viewed 9/11 as a 'Job well done' of which there was much celebration for its success hitting the Bulls eye of World Banking in America.

The IRA funding that dried up following 9/11 did bring the IRA
to their knee's, but the partition in Northern Ireland will continue for more years to come and the Irish struggle for Freedom will only then be understood in the History Books, like the Potato Famine in 1850, of which the British government looked the other way and allowed a millions Irish citizens to starve to death, Hatred towards the British goes very deep indeed, not just William Wallace
of Scotland, England is a tyranny also in History, we must not let our patriotism muddy the truth, for we would have crowned the lie.

The True Enemy is not just the Islamists who believe their reign of Terror is a just cause, but also those who Bankroll them, for this enemy cares not for Freedom or peace and cowardly remains illusive, the true traitors of History, and they are hidden in all the dark corners and still are.

If we are to defeat Jihadism, we must first accept what History has taught us about Terrorist's.
It is powerful people and dirty/clean money that funds them, from individual’s, Arms dealers, Drug s and Governments of the world through trade or otherwise.

We maybe modern man, but our Neolithic roots teaches us, we must follow the trail to hunt the animal down, instead we spend too much time trying to understand the psychology of the foot print.

Less talking and more stalking, otherwise we will all end up like Jimmy Carter, the Western court jester who entertains the enemy who pretends to wear a cloak of peace, but hides the dagger until the smile drops from his blood thirsty lips.

salieri

Very eloquent, LC, but might be more so with fewer grocer's apostrophes.

Dirk Blade

Mark: I suspect we are indeed in violent agreement. I meant to call attention to the important distinction between 'civilian' and 'non-combatant'. It's not just the media who get it confused, and I think we need to be very careful with these terms, especially in a long war. We need to preserve our moral clarity.

When you define terrorism as you did, you help make it easier to justify equivalence between a state's legitimate use of violence against combatant civilians, eg AQ, and eg AQ's killing of non-combatant civilians.

Just as many Islamists are happy to condemn the killing of 'innocents' because they don't think chicks in nightclubs *are* innocent, so their apologists want us to condemn killing 'civilians': Hamas, AQ et al are civilians, and I'd be happy to see a few more of that type of civilian killed! And they are not above the hypocrisy that allows them to call their murderers 'soldiers' when they kill us, but 'civilians' when we kill them.

mark

Dirk - thanks -

I think we have now pushed the limits of clarity in a text medium - need a pint and a pub !!!