Why Not Diplomatically Recognize ISIS?
Either you're prepared to destroy the enemy or surrender to it
December 17, 2015
Tony Blair's former Chief of Staff had a write-up suggesting extending diplomatic recognition to ISIS while employing my historical analogy between ISIS and the USSR in the other direction.
“The natural human reaction to mass murders by ISIS or their purported sympathizers in Paris, Beirut, and San Bernardino is grief, anger, and a demand to redouble efforts to “degrade and destroy” the organization. People have had similar reactions after every terrorist attack, whether it was committed by the PLO or the IRA... Once the red mist of rage has lifted, however, it’s important to think coolly and calmly about the long-term strategy for ending the horrific violence...And of course we'll need to seek out some of those ISIS moderates.
There is no such thing as an insoluble conflict with an armed group – just one that hasn’t been solved yet...
A political strategy to deal with ISIS is thus ultimately likely to mean negotiations with the core leadership, however much we despise the group’s methods. It may seem outlandish that a creed as absurd as ISIS’s should enjoy political support, but on the other hand, it is very hard to see how 2,000 fighters were able to take the Iraqi city of Mosul, population about 1.5 million, without it.
No one is going to be interested in discussing a universal caliphate, but there are issues that can legitimately be discussed, starting with the oppression of Sunnis and future efforts to forge for them a comfortable place in both Iraq and Syria...
Even if some of the hardline leaders of ISIS, particularly the foreign fighters, want nothing less than their full demands (including ushering in the apocalypse), other more moderate leaders will, under military pressure, be prepared to settle for more modest gains. The aim should be to strengthen those moderates’ positions in ISIS’s internal discussions. Such a negotiation would not be easy, but it is possible to imagine a solution that includes autonomy for Sunni communities in both Iraq and Syria, respect for their rights, and oil-revenue sharing that allows a viable system of government.Yes, ISIS moderates and effective recognition of a separate ISIS state. This isn't coming from some lunatic at CommentisFree, but from Tony Blair's former Chief of Staff. And I predicted that this would happen.
This kind of appeasement rhetoric is virtually impossible to argue with if you accept the central premise that terrorists should be negotiated with rather than defeated.
A major reason why ISIS has so upset and frustrated the usual diplomatic corps and their media experts is that it refuses to negotiate, to even accept our legitimacy. The moment they show any willingness to talk, the diplomats will rush in with their reasonable proposals to the ISIS 'moderates'.
And why shouldn't they?
Once you accept the idea that a terrorist group represents popular will and therefore cannot be broken without collective punishment of the civilian population, you must eventually surrender to the terrorists.
The logic is clear. Either you're prepared to destroy the enemy or surrender to it.
Our entire left-wing diplomatic infrastructure, its media people and the political class is prepared to surrender to the enemy while calling it diplomacy. This is how it goes.
1. Try to beat ISIS through containment and pinprick strikes
2. Fail
3. Surrender to ISIS
We're on stage 2 now. Get ready for the moment when Bernie Sanders in his campaign or maybe Elizbeth Warren in 2020 announce that ISIS can't be defeated militarily, the real threat is Global Warming and it's time for us to negotiate a diplomatic solution.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment