Robert Spencer : If our diplomats ever understood this cultural reality, they would
stop being baffled when the negotiations fall apart. And after
generations of the same thing, they refuse to learn.
Terrorists start negotiations with maximalist demands to probe for
weakness and then switch between false promises and threats. If any of
our diplomats had bought a rug at a good price in the Middle East or a
used car at a good price in Chicago, they would respond by walking out.
Instead, they try to find a way to meet their demands. And then the
terrorists have them.
The terrorists become the ones to walk out. They throw Bobby Fischer
style tantrums over every minor detail. They invent a constant stream of
new grievances to be outraged by. What are typical tactics for small
children, sociopaths and Egyptian merchants utterly baffle our best and
brightest who canāt figure out how to cope with opponents who donāt play
by UN rules.
Now the terrorists start extracting concessions in exchange for
taking part in the negotiations. The process becomes a substitute for
the outcome. Peace, an end to violence and the survival of the hostages
hinge not on the defeat of the terrorists, but our ability to win them
over.
Instead of negotiating the terms of a peace agreement, the
negotiations themselves become the subject of negotiations and civilized
nations begin bribing the terrorists to stay and talk. Iran got
billions in sanctions relief and the PLO got to spring terrorists from
prison. The Biden administration pushed Israel to give Hamas a ceasefire
as a prelude to negotiating the release of hostages. The Israeli
government wisely refused to fall for the same trick yet again.
And then the negotiations blew up anyway because the terrorists had killed their āhostageā.
Islamic terrorists, from Iran to the PLO, from Hamas to Qatar, take
the negotiating process itself hostage and warn that they will blow it
up unless their demands are met. Hopeful peace negotiators who allow the
terrorists to hold the process hostage become their useful idiots. From
the Oslo accords to the Iran deal to the Hamas hostage negotiations, it
ends the same way.
The only way to negotiate with terrorists is through strength. Not
just a position of physical strength, because terrorists know how to
turn a strength into a weakness, but through strength in negotiations.
In Islam, posture is reality and reality is malleable. If you are going
to negotiate with terrorists, itās more important to have a strong
posture than the worldās strongest military.
A mighty war machine is an asset, but posture is a willingness to
actually use it. Thatās why the Carter, Clinton and Biden
administrations became international laughingstocks. Itās why the Bush
administration, after initially terrifying the Muslim world, came to be
seen as a foolish foe.
Western liberals believe that peace will be achieved when all the
wars end, but peace in the Muslim world is not a permanent state but a
temporary truce in an endless war. Liberals tell us that the problem is a
lack of understanding, but the lack of understanding is coming from
them.
Liberals are obsessed with understanding the other side, but rather
than understanding it, they adopt its grievances as their own, label
them as anti-colonialism or some other leftist buzzword, and then take
on the job of scourging their own country over the enemyās grievances.
After generations of this indoctrination, some at academic institutions
funded by Muslim monarchs, most of our diplomats have internalized enemy
propaganda as factual history and moral reality.
This makes the average State Department girl or Foreign Service lad
as able to negotiate with Islamic terrorists as Vidkun Quisling was at
negotiating Norwayās independence with the Nazis.
Obama told the nuke deal negotiators that Iran had good reason to
fear us because of our support for the Shah and that it was their job to
relieve the fears of the ayatollahs. Such kindly understanding
permeates our diplomats who spend a lot of time āunderstandingā the
enemyās position through the rants of western radicals like Noam Chomsky
and John Mearsheimer.
The State Department doesnāt understand our national security. It
doesnāt understand the fears of non-Muslims and Muslim governments
worried about Islamic terrorists. But itās entirely up to date on
whatever orientalist nonsense Marxists use to prop up the third world
terrorists they hope will bring western civilization crashing down after
the Bolsheviks proved unfit for the job.
But booting every Georgetown grad who has read Chomsky doesnāt fix
the problems of applying a process meant for civilized countries trying
to reach an amicable solution to terrorists who see negotiations as a
means of gaining an advantage before their next attack. The
international community, flawed as it is, maintains a level of trust
that makes agreements possible.
There is no trust to be had within the Islamic ummah where all
agreements are temporary, everything is subject to revision based on
force and trickery, and all oaths are fatally false. Muslim factions
cannot trust each other beyond the mutual interests of the moment. Even
when bound by kinship and a common religion, they turn on each other in
the blink of an eye.
We cannot even count on that much. Without family ties and religious
bonds, there is no moral or personal obligation we can expect them to
have toward us. Not just their inclinations, but honor and religion
demand that they lie to us, cheat us and harm us whenever they can.
Thatās why the first rule of negotiating with Islamic terrorists is
donāt. It achieves nothing, The only point of such negotiations is to
state firmly and clearly what our intentions are. That is why they are
also best conducted with heavy artillery. Terrorists will not end their
attacks in response to concessions or negotiations. They will
temporarily end them in response to successful attacks or permanently in
response to their total destruction. That is how you negotiate with
terrorists.
The gentle art of negotiating with terrorists demands that we know
who they are and who we are. As Sun Tzu observed, āIf you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you
will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle.ā We have been losing the war on terror
because we do not know the enemy.
But worse still, we have forgotten who we are. And unless we remember, we will lose.