The following is an extended version of an op-ed that originally appeared in the June 30, 2010 edition of The New York Times.
Not all groups that the United States government has officially classified as terrorists are equally bad or dangerous. In fact, some have become our partners in democracy or in peace processes we pursue. Today, the African National Congress democratically governs with Whites and Blacks in South Africa, and its historical leader, Nelson Mandela, is widely considered the greatest man of peace in the world today. Martin McGuinness and the Provisional Irish Republican Army he spearheaded now preach nonviolence as the way to solve political differences between Protestants and Catholics, as well as between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq. And Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization he leads have become privileged allies in US plans for peace in the Middle East.
The ANC, IRA, PLO and their leaders were all once classified as terrorists by the US government. In each case, there are examples of knowledgeable private citizens -- clergy, academics, scientists and others -- who worked behind the scenes with these official terror groups to end the violence. It's not that religious, academic or scientific credentials automatically convey trust, but when joined with personal commitment to peace they often carry weight beyond mere opinion or desire.
The Supreme Court ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project ruled that any "material support" of a foreign terrorist organization helps lend legitimacy to the organization. This ruling highlights the need to be clear about the distinction between illegal "material support" of a terrorist organization and legal activities that involve talking with terrorists privately and that potentially could reduce terrorism. While direct material support can clearly do us harm, some approaches to interacting with terror groups need not lend them legitimacy, and can actually promote US security.
To be sure there are groups like Al Qaeda that will probably have to be fought to the end, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court reasonably conjectures that any help given them, even in instruction about how to enhance their human rights profile, could free up time and effort in pursuit of extremist violence. (But even in such cases the risk to our national security may be less than the Court's broad interpretation of "material support" suggests, because die-hard groups like Al Qaeda would likely hand back the head of any would-be American do-gooder before he could do any harm.)
Today, as in the entire history of our species, war and group violence are ever present or threatening, and their reduction requires constant effort, innovation and adaptability. This means listening and talking to enemies, probing gray areas for ways forward in order to find out who is truly a mortal foe and who just might become a friend.
It is important to realize that in a political struggle, leaders often wish they could communicate something to the other side before they are able to acknowledge to their own supporters having done so. The doctrine of "open negotiations" is simply not very practical. When direct communication is not feasible, and when suitable official intermediaries are not available, private citizens can fill the gap. However, conditions should be stringent. There must be trust on all sides that information is accurately conveyed, and that it will be kept in confidence as long as necessary.
Accuracy requires both skill in listening and exploring, some degree of cultural understanding and, wherever possible, the intellectual distance that scientific data and research afford. Field-based scientific research also can provide surprising and promising avenues for innovation and breakthrough. For example, in our own work, we sometimes elicit from governments questions they wish to ask of their adversaries but cannot. We then test out answers both with leaders and their populations. Among the surprising things we find is that for the most militant elements on either side of a political divide, sacred values and symbolic gestures, such as sincere shows of respect and recognition by the other side, trump material values and "carrot and stick" approaches to lessening conflict and violence. This seems to be as true of Palestinians who reject Israel as of Iranians who support nuclear development.
We also find significant differences and variation in the attitudes and actions of groups categorized as terror organizations. For example, in recent interactions with Ramadan Shallah, leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (duly reported to US authorities because he is on the FBI's "most wanted" list, see interview here) we found adamant refusal to ever recognize Israel or move towards a two-state solution, whereas Hamas politburo chairman Khaled Meshaal said that his movement could imagine a two-state peace ("salaam," and not just the usual armistice or "hudna"). Further inquiry also confirmed what Saudi intelligence told us and Israeli officials acknowledged, that Hamas has fought to keep Al Qaeda out of its field of play and has no demonstrated interest in global jihad. Whether or not the differences between Al Qaeda, PIJ and Hamas are fundamental, rather than temporary or tactical, only further exploration will reveal. But to assume at the outset that such differences are practically meaningless, and that is invariably wrong to engage any of these groups to explore potential implications for reducing violence, is a grave mistake.
In fieldwork with jihadi leaders, foot soldiers and their friends across Eurasia and North Africa, we find huge variation in the political aspirations, desired actions, and commitment to violence of militant groups and their supporters. And as one of us testified at a March 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, these differences can and must be leveraged to win the cooperation of the next generation of those who otherwise risk becoming our enemies. Field-based scientific understanding of these groups, sometimes in direct interaction with them, is indispensable. Even for the most implacable of them, talking and listening can help us better understand why they want to fight us, so that we may better fight them. The Congress should clarify it's counterterroism laws and see to it that the recent Supreme Court Decision would not hinder such efforts by outlawing all informed interaction with terrorist groups and so harm our national security and prospects for peace around the world.
Scott Atran is an anthropologist at France's National Center for Scientific Research, The University of Michigan, and John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and author of the forthcoming book "Talking to the Enemy." Robert Axelrod is professor of political science, public policy and human understanding at the the University of Michigan, and author of "The Evolution of Cooperation."
I believe it is also important to explore the birth of each of these movements, and establish comparison from where their ideology started and what it has evolved into today.
For instance, Palestinian resistance groups have been quite consistent. They just want their land and resources back from illegal colonists and the occupying country of Israel and then the need for any resistance dries up.
Of course, also in that case it is the occupier who refuses to make peace and simply keeps expanding, thereby perpetuating the conflict.
.
When will Israelis wake up to their own complicity?
.
Most deaths are civilian...that is what brings hate; Innocent Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers who die needlessly....it is their survivors who, like us...want justice.
.
Most of this took place in the Polish/German borders....a story which is usually left out of history.
.
Also missing from history is a little renouned German by the name of 'Albert Goering'....the brother of the infamous Nazi.
.
Albert, however was an anti-Nazi often risking his life and imprisonment...he was instrumental in getting many Jews out of Germany. Now, seal that in your memory...and remember not all Germans were bad...he deserves a better place in history and frankly, a memorial should be made in his honor.
Think about our security in the world.
We can protect ourselves from people who don't like us in only three ways (or combination):
1. Buld a wall. (figuratively and literally)
Very expensive, not very productive. Walls don't seem to work very well.
2. Exterminate them. The Bush solution - pre-emptively blast anyone we don't like. Wait a minute. Think about what that really means and what the consequences are. If we become that, then we must be destroyed for the safety of the rest of humanity...
3. Figure out how to make them want to quit. If we don't figure out how to stop people from wanting to destroy us (or everyone else), then we are lost. This can be the only viable long-term solution.
Now, ask yourself. How much money have we spent on two wars of attrition with an enemy fuelled by an endless supply of fanatic soldiers? (part of the endlessness of supply is our own fault!). Fuelled by this endless supply, how long do you think the war(s) will take? Does that sound like a winning strategy to you? If not, then...
.
Most deaths are civilian...that is what brings hate; Innocent Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers who die needlessly....it is their survivors who, like us...want justice.
Doesn't this recent Supreme Court ruling speak loud and clear to the truth that Ronald Reagan committed TREASON during the Iran-Contra shenanigans?
Having them explain, precisely how their unique utopian mindscape transmutes into reality. So that the gaping chasms in that previously un-surveyed internal vista, become all too evident. Even to them.
“we find huge variation in the political aspirations, desired actions, and commitment to violence of militant groups and their supporters.”
Is that because, a non-obvious paradigm is being downwardly dispensed? Questioning quickly reveals that the interpretations of individuals don’t match. Therefore, the content of the script being supplied isn’t instantaneously evident to anyone. The superficial cohesion created by keeping this demonstrable anomaly hidden, permits control. Since each unthinking participant plays the part they are apportioned. For example: Were they to be unwittingly repositioned into the ranks of their enemy, wouldn’t they follow that regime just as vehemently as the role they acted-out before? Two contradictory paradigms cannot simultaneously be correct. Although they can be concurrently incorrect. If their perceived correctness is interchangeable, then there is something drastically awry with the perception process. Its apparent nature must be being accepted, rather than argued.
Basically, the world has moved on and they haven't. They probably can't. So, their only solution is to tear down the world (and our country). And they are doing their damnedest to do just that.
1. Leaders
2. Combatants (main forces, regional forces, local forces)
3. Cadre (also called militants of the party)
4. Auxiliaries (active followers providing important support services.)
5. Main Base (of popular support)
That's way more than most radio commentators or politicians want to talk about, since I imagine even five categories represents a greater degree of complexity and ambiguity, because it's not simple and easy. Americans like simple and easy.
Each category has different levels of involvement and differing motivations for doing what they do. That diversity of motivation allows for the possibility of chipping away at the strength of the insurgency, which is to say 2, 4 and 5 (who are all related, for the most part) which allows an easier time getting at 1 and 3.
If we treat the entire group of terrorists or guerrillas like the leadership, which is the oversimplification we often wind up practicing, we miss many useful opportunities to deal with them. To add further to the problem of dealing with insurgent groups as monoliths, there is the reality that cohesive tribal or local units often join the movement intact, under their own leadership to whom they are more beholden, as opposed to the movement's leadership itself.
A hammer isn't the tool for all jobs, as they say, nor is every problem a nail.
It is particularly difficult when the terrorists in question practice "asymmetrical warfare," attacking soft civilian targets that little to do with the issues and even less ability to defend themselves, simply because they are easy to hit. For all their faults, the ANC and the IRA usually tried to murder people directly involved with the conflict, in preference to just blowing up anyone who happened to be at a crowded marketplace.
In other words, it is the tactics, rather than the goals, that are so reprehensible as to make talking difficult. (Of course you are right about Al Qaeda: their only goal is to destroy western society. The Taliban goal: forcing all Muslims to live as the Taliban say they should, is not much better.)
They label some groups as terrorist and do business with others who are of equal traits.
Have a look see at who the US supports in Honduras these days !