[Mb-civic] IMPORTANT: Misreading the Enemy - David Ignatius - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Misreading the Enemy
What We Don't Grasp About Militant Islam
<>
By David Ignatius
The Washington Post
Friday, April 28, 2006; A19

It's a truism that all conflicts end eventually. But how do you resolve 
a confrontation with an adversary that appears unable or unwilling to 
negotiate a settlement? That's a common problem that runs through the 
West's battles with militant Islam.

The most pressing instance is Iran's drive to become a nuclear power. 
The United States and its allies still talk as if it will be possible to 
stop the Iranian nuclear program short of war, through a combination of 
sanctions and diplomatic negotiations. But the Iranians push ahead, 
seemingly oblivious, and the ruling mullahs act contemptuous of the 
West's threats and blandishments.

Iran's implacability may have been the most important lesson of the 
three years of "negotiations" over its nuclear program conducted by 
three European Union nations, France, Britain and Germany. In fact, says 
a senior French official, it wasn't really a negotiation at all. "The 
E.U. talked and the Iranians responded, but they never came back with 
counterproposals because they could not agree on anything."

French analysts believe the Iranians displayed a similar refusal to 
negotiate during their long and bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. The 
exhausted Iraqis made efforts to seek a negotiated peace, but the 
Iranians rejected their feelers. After America and France covertly aided 
Saddam Hussein, the Iranians finally accepted a United Nations-mandated 
cease-fire in August 1988. But there was never a formal peace treaty, 
and the Iranians dragged their feet even on the exchange of prisoners.

The latest example of Iran's diplo-phobia was a statement this week by 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissing the U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq 
that had tentatively been set with the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, 
Zalmay Khalilzad. There was nothing to talk about, Ahmadinejad implied. 
Now that the Iraqis had formed a new government, he said, "the occupiers 
should leave and allow Iraqi people to run their country."

Analysts think this reluctance to negotiate partly reflects divisions 
within Iran's ruling elite. Certainly the diffuse centers of power in 
the Iranian government make it difficult to reach a common position. But 
I suspect there is a deeper disconnect: For a theocratic regime that 
claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema. 
Great issues of war and peace will be resolved by God's will, not by 
human negotiators. Better to lose than to bargain with the devil. Better 
to suffer physical hardship than humiliation.

This same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups. 
Al-Qaeda doesn't seek negotiations or a political settlement, nor should 
the West imagine it could reach one with a group that demands that 
America and its allies withdraw altogether from the Muslim world. The 
closest Osama bin Laden has come to a political demarche was his Jan. 19 
offer of "a long-term truce based on fair conditions," which weren't 
specified. His deeper message was that al-Qaeda would wait it out -- 
waging a long war of attrition, confident that its adversaries would 
eventually grow tired and capitulate. America's powerful weapons might 
win battles, he said, "but they will lose the war. Being patient and 
steady is much better, and the end counts."

The West has placed its hopes on the political maturation of radical 
Muslim groups, figuring that as they assume responsibility, they will 
grow accustomed to the compromises that are essential to political life. 
But so far, there is little evidence to support this hope. The Hamas 
government appears to have nothing it wants to negotiate with Israel. 
Indeed, it still refuses to formally recognize the existence of its 
adversary. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has agreed to little compromises since 
it joined the government, but not big ones.

A word that recurs in radical Muslim proclamations is "dignity." That is 
not a political demand, nor one that can be achieved through 
negotiation. Indeed, for groups that feel victimized, negotiation with a 
powerful adversary can itself be demeaning. That's why the unyielding 
Yasser Arafat remained popular among Palestinians, despite his failure 
to deliver concrete benefits. He was a symbol of pride and resistance. 
Hamas, too, gains support because of its rigid steadfastness, and a 
strategy that seeks to punish pro-Hamas Palestinians into compromise 
will probably fail for the same reason.

The Muslim demand for respect isn't something that can be negotiated, 
but that doesn't mean the West shouldn't take it seriously. For as the 
Muslim world gains a greater sense of dignity in its dealings with the 
West, the fundamental weapon of Iran, al-Qaeda and Hamas will lose much 
of its potency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042701692.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060428/4b6497d3/attachment.htm