9/11 - Negotiation = Trump

When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, airport security was nonexistent by today's standards, and planes getting hijacked was a thing that happened from time to time, like school shootings today.  In those days, some of the hijackings were political, but many were just done for money.  Commandeering a plane was just a way to acquire a bunch of hostages whose lives could be traded for cash.  This rarely worked out for the hijackers, whose plane would often be taken away from them by force, even if innocent lives were inevitably lost along the way.

These hijack-for-profit extortionists would kill hostages if necessary to gain tactical advantage, but murder didn't seem to be their primary goal.  So I thought the authorities should just pay the ransom to ensure the safe release of all the innocents.  It had to be explained to me why this seemingly obvious strategy was a naive idea.  The way it went was that if we give in to their demands, this will only encourage other groups to copy the same strategy, resulting in even more hijackings in the future.

Even this meager reasoning has been lost in today's rhetoric on terrorism.  Leaders from all countries and of all political persuasions just flatly state: "we don't negotiate with terrorists".  Why is this policy never examined?  In the hostages-for-cash scenario, there is a certain grim logic to the reasoning, but does the same calculus necessarily apply to today's political terrorism?

You might think the same logic applies universally, but a deeper analysis shows otherwise.  True, if political groups got what they wanted, their tactics might become more popular in the future.  But what do they want?  Would the demands of all similar groups be insatiable, growing without bound until the whole world was engulfed in perpetual terror?

If you only consume mainstream news, you wouldn't even know they had any demands, let alone what they are.  Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS and the like are depicted as mindless sub-humans, bent on a completely irrational path of destroying us Westerners, who are just minding our own business when they strike out at us.  Within this narrative, the only acceptable response is to annihilate them with superior violence.

This characterization of today's terrorists is false.  They are human beings, trying to build a society just like us.  They have very specific demands of us, many of which are quite reasonable.  Meeting their demands would inevitably involve a reduction in western violence in their lands, which would cool the anger that's directed back at us.  Therefore, negotiation and willingness to meet some of their demands would result in a de-esalation of violence.

How did I come by such a contrary viewpoint?  Is it hopelessly naive?  A turning point for me was reading the book Imperial Hubris.  Unless you read a source like this, you and I can't have a rational discussion about things, because you're wallowing in ignorance.  Did you know that Al Qaeda articulated a very short, very specific list of demands, years before 9/11?  Why was this not widely reported, especially after 9/11 resulted from our failure to meet their demands?  Because the unconditional, unexamined "we don't negotiate with terrorists" mantra makes such thoughts unthinkable, let alone admissible in public debate.

If we at least entertain the possibility that people acting with violence are rational human beings who are simply out of options, then ending the cycle of violence becomes possible.  Why is this unthinkable?  The United States acts with violence, yet most Americans consider this rational, just and necessary action.  Why isn't the "enemy" given the same benefit of the doubt?  Answer: because they've been dehumanized so we don't need to consider their concerns.

What are the demands Al Qaeda made prior to 9/11?  Things like 1) Stop militarily occupying Muslim holy lands, 2) Stop propping up corrupt dictators in the Arab world, and 3) Stop blind support of Israel and dehumanization of the Palestinians.  Are such demands really beyond the pale, not even worthy of discussion?  To the US political and media elite, they apparently are, but what do you think?  Read Imperial Hubris and decide for yourself how bad the bad guys really are.

How does Donald Trump fit into this story?  I'll argue that someone like him is inevitable when a refusal to negotiate with others is the universal stance on both sides of the political divide in America.  Through eight years of Bush and eight years of Obama, the narrative pushed by both parties and their allied media has been the dehumanization of Muslim enemies, and a refusal to even admit they could have legitimate grievances with us.  When was the last time you saw a media interview of someone from a group branded as terrorist by the US?  Obama can talk about how we're at war with the Terrorists(TM), not Islam, but this doesn't help.  If Obama is such a nuanced, thoughtful statesman, why can't he admit the terrorists themselves are also human beings?

When superior violence is the only acceptable response to terrorism, escalation is inevitable, as the history of the War on Terror has shown.  If a genuinely peace-minded leader emerged and tried to negotiate with terrorists, the media would crucify him.  Opponents would call him a terrorist-lover, and the media would repeat this without challenge.  Authoritarianism through superior violence saturates our culture, from school to policing to war.  In such an atmosphere, one begins to wonder why it took so long for a Trump to appear.  And the media look around in horror, wondering how this could have happened, never considering their role in making it inevitable.

Did you know that Al Qaeda's threat, if their demands weren't met, was to draw us into an endless, global war that would bankrupt us?  That gives you a different take on 9/11 and the War on Terror, doesn't it?

How can we get out of this mess?  Start making negotiation a regular part of foreign policy discussions.  Remember when diplomacy used to be a respected role?  Today, diplomats only role is to convey threats of violence in euphemistic language.  The media can change this by simply asking questions.  Why has the so-called terrorist group done this horrifying act?  What do they hope to gain?  Why do they hate us?  Are their demands reasonable or not?  These questions have answers, but we never hear them because journalists and public officials never ask.  You can start by asking them yourself.