No negotiations.
There's more news of drone deaths, this time including western hostages. "Mistakes can occur", president Obama says, employing the passive voice as his predecessor Ronald Reagan often did. The American captive, aid worker Warren Weinstein, had asked his government to work toward negotiating his release, to no avail. We do not make deals with "terrorists". Unlike during practically every war our country has been involved in previously, in the context of the "Global War on Terror", prisoner release negotiations have been barred, whether on the part of the United States government or by private parties, such as the families of the captives. Thus, no release, and ultimately, death by drone.
What brought this policy about? Perhaps it's the experience of, again, Reagan and the fallout from the Iran-Contra scandal. The official line at that time was, "we will not negotiate with terrorists", but the effort towards back-channel negotiations became clear as the story unfolded. Of course, context is important, it seems to me. Back in the eighties, we were deeply involved in the Lebanese civil war, both directly and through Israel's invasion - that was the proximate cause of the capture of westerners in Lebanon. We were also supporting Iraq's murderous war against Iran, which no doubt accounts for Iran's interest in negotiating for arms with American representatives. And then there's the Contra side of the ledger. Against that bloody backdrop, negotiating for captives seems pretty minor.
As far as I can tell, in every American conflict since the end of World War II, we have referred to our enemies as terrorists. We certainly did it in Vietnam. It's a pretty simple principle - the other side kills, as do we, but their violence is worse than ours. Ours is justified, even if it's way beyond the scale of the violence practiced by our adversaries. And so, we express regret when our flying killer robots accidentally blows up an American. No such courtesy when we incinerate nameless Pakistanis, etc.
As in previous conflicts, terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. Which is why barring negotiations over captives is so nonsensical. If we did it before, we can do it now.
luv u,
jp
What brought this policy about? Perhaps it's the experience of, again, Reagan and the fallout from the Iran-Contra scandal. The official line at that time was, "we will not negotiate with terrorists", but the effort towards back-channel negotiations became clear as the story unfolded. Of course, context is important, it seems to me. Back in the eighties, we were deeply involved in the Lebanese civil war, both directly and through Israel's invasion - that was the proximate cause of the capture of westerners in Lebanon. We were also supporting Iraq's murderous war against Iran, which no doubt accounts for Iran's interest in negotiating for arms with American representatives. And then there's the Contra side of the ledger. Against that bloody backdrop, negotiating for captives seems pretty minor.
As far as I can tell, in every American conflict since the end of World War II, we have referred to our enemies as terrorists. We certainly did it in Vietnam. It's a pretty simple principle - the other side kills, as do we, but their violence is worse than ours. Ours is justified, even if it's way beyond the scale of the violence practiced by our adversaries. And so, we express regret when our flying killer robots accidentally blows up an American. No such courtesy when we incinerate nameless Pakistanis, etc.
As in previous conflicts, terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. Which is why barring negotiations over captives is so nonsensical. If we did it before, we can do it now.
luv u,
jp
Comments