http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=98145 two american generals, Ray Odierno and centcom of Iraq William Fallon, want Turkey to negotiate with PKK terrorists, based in Northern Iraq. as far as I know, US doesnt approve negotiation with terrorists of any kind, and i did not hear that US is willing to negotiate with Al qaida. so what is that double standard.? first US gov't asked Turkish army to finish the "job" in 2 weeks, as if mighty US army can finish "anything" in Afghanistan for the last 6+ years. is US an honest ally of Turkey?
The US Army is being led by fools in Congress and the White House. The Army only does what it is told to do by them. So put the double standard on the politicans not the Army because that's where it really belongs.
They are only perpetuating what has been going on for decades with the Kurds and Turkey. That problem should have been delt with before it got this far but Politicans don't want another problem do they.
The US is certainly an ally of Turkey, but we're also allies with the Kurds. So, obviously, it's a tricky situation. Furthermore (from your link): So you're making a big deal out of a slip of the tongue from a guy who's not even in charge in Iraq anymore.
Can i make one too? where are you from, i will start working on it straight away.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To be honest, the ideal is to (i) have a reputation for never negotiating and (ii) negotiating when it's useful. The reputation matters in the long run because it assumes that potential terrorists will not engage in terrorist acts if they know that their demands will never be acceded to by their target. (This assumes that the terrorists are very rational, which I am not sure humans sufficiently are, let alone radical terrorists.) But whether we're dealing with terrorists is not the issue. I mean, in a very real sense anyone who takes "hostages" is behaving very much like a terrorist, and one could make the claim that you should never negotiate with hostage-takers because it only encourages future miscreants to take hostages as bargaining chips, the same logic underlying the refusal to negotiate with terrorists. What is the first thing the police do when confronted with hostage takers though? Unless they have a clear shot, they negotiate (at least in the sense of "discussing demands"). Why? Because there's an advantage to it. Talking to the hostage taker gives the police additional time to formulate a rescue plan and get assets in place. Without talk, the frustrated criminal might start harming his hostages (itself a negotiating gambit.) In a case where we are allies with a target and would very much like to be allies with the terrorists, of course it makes sense to talk. In that case, we're not even the target, so mediation is a perfect position for us to take. The only risk it draws is the risk that future terrorists will strike our allies in an effort to draw us into their dispute, which seems a remote chance in most cases. There are hypothetical cases when it would be best to negotiate with terrorists (even al Qaida), the only issue with it is that it sets the tone for future interaction with other groups using similar tactics.
By definition, people turn to terrorism as a last resort when they can find no other strategy that gives them the slightest chance of accomplishing their goals. Therefore if you're genuinely willing to compromise on the terrorists' goals, the logical choice seems to be an offer to negotiate and see if they're willing to compromise as well. The reason this seldom happens is that by the time the situation has become this dire, at least one side and often both refuse to compromise. There's also the practical aspect. Again by definition, since terrorist organizations are almost never nations they almost always lack a well-defined hierarchical structure. There is often no political or military leader who has the practical authority to speak for everyone; no one who can agree to a compromise and inspire the confidence that everyone on his side will abide by it. If the PKK has a leader who can speak for all of his people and who will consider a compromise, then negotiation is a reasonable choice.
