Is it time to talk to al-Qa'ida?
Is it time to talk to al-Qa'ida? The question has arisen because Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, suggested that the British government should begin to negotiate with al-Qa'ida as a way of combating its violence.
He justifies this by making the comparison with Northern Ireland, saying that "If somebody can show me any terrorism campaign where it has been policed out, I'd be happy to read about it, because I can't think of one." He also cited the need for pragmatism.
In reality, the difficulty is one of the degree of pragmatism employed. Every situation is different, and it's debatable how useful his comparison between the troubles in Northern Ireland and al-Qa'ida is.
Both employed violence, it is true, but beyond that, do the two groups really compare? The IRA's "demands" were clear enough - there was a point upon which talks could be held, and over the decades, a tentative compromise was found. But al-Qa'ida's purpose is so vague and unachievable, that when one distills it into some sort of concrete "demand", it boils down to an all-consuming hatred of the Western lifestyle. In fact, the terrorist act against the West seems to be its purpose. For the IRA, it was a tactic designed to aid its purpose.
So what do Open House readers think - is it time to talk to al-Qa'ida?
Let me comment on your words below:
"But al-Qa'ida's purpose is so vague and unachievable, that when one distills it into some sort of concrete "demand", it boils down to an all-consuming hatred of the Western lifestyle."
Is your statement accurate? Or have you taken the easy path of dismissing the enemy without trying to understand it?
Here's a summary of Al-Qaeda's grievances from a very non-controversial US Navy document called "Al-Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology"
(http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/al-queda%20evolve.htm#intro)
"Bin Laden issued a declaration of jihad against the United States in 1996 that signaled his emergence as an internationally recognizable figure and offered a full account of his main critiques... Bin Laden condemned the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, criticized the international sanctions regime on Iraq, and voiced his opposition to U.S. support for Israel.7 The declaration also cited massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Assam, the Philippines, Fatani, Ogaden, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnya, and Bosnia-Herzegovina" as examples of a growing war on Islam for which the United States should be punished"
So it seems to US Navy analysts that the goals of Bin Laden are pretty well defined; namely, to get American troops out of his native Saudi Arabia and punish the government which let them in; to end the Israel / Palestine conflict and to make a statement about conflicts around the world where Muslim populations were under attack by superpowers or their clients.
Those are not abstract demands about Western lifestyle. Rather they are all demands for changes in foreign policies of Western countries who have tolerated and supported any manners of oppressive, undemocratic governments in the middle east in order to guarantee the supply of oil.
My point is that it is not Bin Laden's political goals which are unfathomable and absurd. The problem is Al-Qaeda's use of violence against civilians (terrorism) in the mistaken belief that it will do any good.
If the above are Al-Qaeda's political goals, the question is not whether or not one should talk to them. The question should be whether or not Western powers should do something about the oil-imperialist foreign policies which are causing so much resentment around the world.
Posted by: Zeeshan Hasan | Monday, 02 June 2008 at 02:56 PM
I don't know how well qualified Sir Hugh Orde is to talk about Al-Qaeda, but I suspect he may be more so than Michael Savage. Zeeshan Hasan makes good sense.
Posted by: Mark D | Monday, 02 June 2008 at 03:40 PM
Alastair Crooke, founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, has also commented on this today. He makes a similar point about al-Qa'ida lacking a political goal, and makes the great point:
"Why start with al-Qaida, of all groups, when the west will not speak to Hizbullah or Hamas?"
Mark D - the post is merely a starting point for an intersting debate. Would you advocate speaking to al-Qa'ida as a means of tackling terrorist attacks?
Posted by: Michael Savage | Monday, 02 June 2008 at 04:22 PM
How do you talk to a multi headed Hydra? We know who Bin Laden is and we know what he wants but he is not at the head of an empirical organisation, so talking to him or his successor (if he's dead as some claim) will prove pointless.
Al Qaeda is a very loose, lateral organistion made up of many diverse groups, without any formal command structure except within each seperate group. Assuming that we might be able to convince or buy off Al Qaeda how then do we deal with all the loosely affiliated groups that will go into hiding and continue their private wars against who ever they hold a grudge. We're aren't talking conventional military warfare where you can declare a ceasefire and end to hostilities but many different groups and cells all claiming to be under the umbrella of Al Qaeda but having different agendas.
Posted by: flipped | Monday, 02 June 2008 at 08:48 PM
Special report: Is Al Qa'ida in pieces? No, they are in peace with their brothers unlike us.
Michael Savage
Is it time to talk to Al Qaida?
I read your special report and believe is it very special. First, you pound the bones of those you caught on 7/7 thinking they are either cousins of Saddam or Osama. Arguably, the British law is the best and I respect the law. What is more this law coming from India has seen many superb bills, acts, and statutes that take debates in the very open manner unlike the now Indian law. The graft has eaten the substance and we have to look at the British law as the rule of law and follow these, learn these, teach these and pas these on. Albeit we ought not to forget the origin that states all are innocent until proved guilty.
Agreed that some on were shot in the tube station in error, apology rendered, and the case hushed up. Agreed that we have all against YO Blaire who took us to the war when we could have stayed on and do better then to follow Bush. What did we get in this? We fail to see anything. Bush has the same problem as he had. On oil. Very unpopular figure a Bush put many in the hidden prison; British fed the prisoners and kept quite. Agreed that Bush has many in Gunatanamo Bay and Abu Gharib and Afghanistan prisons. We have no numbers. Tell me why the Taliban broke the prison and too the Kandahar provinces when the Americans say we have the Taliban under run?
I mean the break of the doors, walls, and let the prisons 1300 of them to go Scot-free shows that some one has a bigger cannon only to be used when you talk of, “They are chicken”. They come back and show you they are not. Who is Al Qaeda? The Taliban? The olden folks of Afghanistan who do not want the statues in the Muslim country as the statues are not Allah. Taliban and Al Qaeda. Are they not the same?
To end the arguments I agree with you. Give them the Red Passports of UK.I go by the good suggestions. “Ultimately, the ideological battle against al-Qa'ida in the West may be won here in Britain, in places such as Leyton and Walthamstow, east London, whose residents include five of the eight alleged al-Qa'ida operatives currently on trial for plotting to bring down US-bound passenger jets in 2006. It is in this country that many leaders of the jihadist movement have settled as political refugees, and the capital has long been a key barometer of future Islamist trends. There are probably more supporters of al-Qa'ida in Britain than any other Western country.”
Keep them train them to be good citizens, they will help you drill the oil in the Arctic if the environmentalists agree. They do not want to kill the small fishes
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa
Posted by: Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD | Sunday, 22 June 2008 at 12:24 PM