Negotiating with terrorists

[solicitr]

Well, Jny, I think perhaps the operative distinction would be whether troops are merely present (w/o regard to their popularity), or actively exercising control over the populace. We have troops in Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Turkey, Japan, South Korea... but they exercise no control or jurisdiction over the locals and in fact are present under a formal treaty of alliance with the host government.

It was not of course always the case, at least not in Germany, Italy and Japan- where we also imposed governments. We were once occupiers there. Now we merely have troops stationed there.

It is entirely possible (I'm not saying desirable) that we could maintain troops in Iraq for decades on the same terms as those in Europe, i.e. having no authority. That would no longer be an 'occupation.'

I can't help but find those sudden reminders of near military presence upsetting. I shrink from the sight of them involuntarily, you know? - because I'm a civilian and it's a weird feeling to be overtaken by military on the way to the 7-11.

That sounds so odd to one who grew up on and around military bases. To me they're Us.

[sauronsfinger]

Perception is everything.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Impenitent]

...We civilians are outsiders and may find it quite off-putting to confront an alternative culture that exists by definition for the purpose of killing people.

Wow Jn! I'm a little allergic to guns myself, but I'd have to take exception to that narrow definition. The soldiers I've known (all of them Israeli, as it happens) would say the purpose is defence. I realise that is just as narrow, but there are few in the military who'd feel comfortable with your definition - which is just a little inflamatory, even to my pro-pacifist ears.

[yovargas]

Agreed.

[solicitr]

Actually, I'm not really offended, since Jny plainly didn't mean it as an insult, but as a hard look at the bitter reality. "Defense" ultimately is a political question. The function of a military is to hurt people and break things; and if some on the outside might want to pretty it up, soldiers don't. I suppose Jny might have used 'function' rather than 'purpose', but that's getting a little Aristotelian.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[solicitr]

The only part I would take issue with is "Isolation, paranoia, contempt". That's not in my experience generally true. What you see as 'isolation' I would read as 'a desire to be with other people who know where you're coming from,' a tenedncy one sees in cops and firefighters and EMTs as well. But that fades with time. The WWII and Korea vets eventually re-integrated So also did the Vietnam vets, notwithstanding CBS News mythmaking.

Contempt? That's an interesting one. I think there is a great deal of exasperated frustration among soldiers at the hot air spewed by civilians who don't know what the f**k they're talking about; yes, there is certainly contempt for the know-nothing loudmouths. But for civilians as a whole? Not at all- just that reserved corner of "You weren't there. You wouldn't understand."

[solicitr]

More on negotiations with terrorists (New York Times)

PARIS — The Iranians called their proposal a “None paper.”

Indeed, for officials of the six countries sitting on the other side of the table, the paper addressed none of their ideas for resolving the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.

Instead, the informal two-page document that Iran distributed at nuclear talks in Geneva on Saturday ignored the main six-power demand on curbing Iran’s enrichment of uranium and called for concessions from the other side.

....

For the six powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — the paper’s substance was just as disappointing as its style. Sergei Kisliak, the Russian deputy foreign minister, could not suppress a laugh when he read it, according to one participant.

....

As a result, they left the impression that they wanted to lure the parties into an open-ended, cost-free, high-level negotiating process.

“The paper calls for a huge exercise in talking,” said one senior European official. “If you were to try to implement it, it would take a minimum of several years.”

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[solicitr]

Negitiating with terrorists update

YASOUJ, Iran — Iran will not yield to world powers in the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in a speech broadcast live on state television.

"The Iranian nation will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers," he said. "The Iranian nation has chosen its path."

Now, how productive was the decision of the US to participate? Reasonable dialog, or just handing the Iranians a propaganda victory?

"You (U.S.) took a positive step. It was a step toward recognizing the rights of the Iranian nation, toward justice, toward repairing your image in the world, toward cleaning 50 years of crimes you committed against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said

The only signal sent was one of weakness, I'm afraid.

[solicitr]

Jny, there is actually, now that you mention it, one area of real contempt- that of front-line personnel (especially combat veterans) for REMFs (rear-echelon m**f**s). The supply clerks and typists and staff sorts, guys who spend the war well behind the front with hot showers and air conditioning and three squares a day and beer, and who then bitch out some exhausted mud Marine for uncreased trousers.

[sauronsfinger]

They also serve who sit and type.

You can say what you want about me, but I am not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the servicemen of the United States of America.

Smile. That line pretty much comes from ANIMAL HOUSE.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[vison]

When men were drafted and sent off to kill and/or die, there was much reason for bitterness. But when the military is composed of volunteers?

I have an awful lot of military men in my family, and I have fire-fighters and police officers, too. They share a mindset that often makes me acutely uncomfortable. Lately there has been a conscious effort in police training to lessen the "us vs them" mentality that is so pervasive in the quasi-military world of the police. These men (and 2 women) are ALL volunteers. No one forced them into the service. It happens to suit a certain kind of person - but some of them found out that it might have been a mistake after all. Since the military members of my family, both Canadian and American, are all descended from my Norwegian grandfather, they tend to fall into morose alcoholism, which as a form of suicide is more than commonly dreadful to deal with.

A lifetime spent contemplating "killing the enemy" somehow too often leads to a belief that enemies are everywhere.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[vison]

As usual, I agree with you.

But, to be honest, I think we tend to have a rosy view of the past. Thugs have always been with us. Really nasty thugs. Victorian London is a classic example. The police, very often, used to let them have "territory" and as long as the thugs stayed within certain limits they were left alone. Now the territories, both physical and otherwise, are "everywhere".

Why is this? I think we are too many, too crowded, too stimulated by the world around us. I read somewhere that the average person nowadays has to make more decisions by lunchtime than our ancestors had to make in a year. There is something to that. Sensory overload.

Sensory overload and ridiculous expectations raised by poor role models and a media too ready to exalt crap.

Jeez. I'm starting to sound like someone else. Better stop.

And, of course, hopelessness. The realization that the Dream ain't for them.

[solicitr]

Poverty, you mean? Perhaps. But very few terrorist come from poverty- they tend on the whole to come from very comfortable backgrounds.

Ignorance? Absolutely- but when we talk about 'lack of educational opportunity,' in many cases it's not that the opportunity isn't there, but that the community prefers insularity and brainwashing- just look at Hamas kiddie TV and Saudi and Iranian textbooks (some used right in this country).

[vison]

Poverty, you mean? Perhaps. But very few terrorist come from poverty- they tend on the whole to come from very comfortable backgrounds.

Ignorance? Absolutely- but when we talk about 'lack of educational opportunity,' in many cases it's not that the opportunity isn't there, but that the community prefers insularity and brainwashing- just look at Hamas kiddie TV and Saudi and Iranian textbooks (some used right in this country).

Poverty is over-emphasized, IMHO. Poverty is, after all, a very relative thing. I don't think poverty is the root cause of "Islamic terrorism", whatever it is. And I agree that what passes for "education" in some Islamic societies is appallingly inadequate: particularly in Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers were from and where Osama bin Laden was born and bred.

Nor do I think poverty is the root cause of urban crime. One big root on that ugly plant is Drugs. I don't intend to start another fight here, but I have to say that if there is one War that is even more pointless than "The War on Terrorism" it's "The War on Drugs".