Diplomacy for the War at Home

If we are to fight a War at Home - waged by the NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the DIA - against terrorist threats to our Homeland, are we to do so in such a manner as to deliberately rule out any possible diplomatic solution?

If we are to trust our Government's assertion that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would increase the risk of terror attacks on our Homeland, and if it is the goal of our Government to remove our troops expediently and expidiciously, then it follows that a non-military approach to solving our National Quagmire is essential. Distasteful though it may seem, the search for a diplomatic victory may require the formal recognition of Al Qaeda, and a diplomatic relationship with this formal body.

I think it can be taken as obvious by now that Al Qaeda is not some loose band of thugs and theives hiding out in mountain caves, but is a group of individuals who are organized and resourceful, who confess a group identity, and who associate with various similar groups of individuals.

In terms of the phenomenology of the movement, it may be worthwhile to consider nationalism as a mechanism to account for Al Qaeda. If it seems odd to think of Al Qaeda in nationalistic terms - we are, after all, told Al Qaeda is a "network" - it is worth noting that we speak of "the Palestinians" as we speak of nationalities. We hear the President speak of "Palestine," although no such State has yet been established.

Any number of causes can be used to account for the motivations of individual members of Al Qaeda. Some individuals, certainly, are motivated by ideology; some, certainly, are so lost as human beings they hate our Country enough to die just to prove it. Others, likely, are motivated by what they've seen America do in Iraq, Panama, Angola, or the disputed Israeli territories - these latter persons motivated by desperation and the fear they will be assimilated next.

Were America to publicly recognize Al Qaeda as we recognize Nations, and open formal diplomatic negotiations, we could meaningfully ask the question, "How can we help make the Middle East more stable, prosperous, and egalitarian?" The asking of the question in such a context - backed by the demonstrable Will and ability to help carry out positive initiatives - means violence would no longer be a necessary first and last resort.

We must eliminate the need for terror as a political approach by separating terror as a tactic from the ideologies terrorists represent. In the absence of desperation, a radical approach is not necessary. Diplomacy as an outstretched hand gives reason to doubt the need for desperate measures.

Our Government must acknowledge the problematic nature of its present Middle East policy in order to demonstrate our leadership is not so rigid as to be unmoved even in the face of its own citizenry. We must demonstrate that our military presence in the Middle East does not represent a Colonial occupying force. We must demonstrate that our relationship with regional leaders is sufficiently developed as to facilitate regional cooperation.

Because cultural familiarity will be vital to successful diplomacy, we must build enduring ties with regional institutions, such as universities, art and natural history museums, humanitarian and civil liberties organizations, and entreprenurial or trade associations. We must help motivate Europe and China to engage in similar iniatives. We should help facilitate trade between the Middle East, South America, and Africa, possibly by subsidizing transportation or by providing training in management strategies. Al Qaeda must be granted the status of Nation; identified as such, these people will most likely seek to establish a State, and the interest of this people will require legitimate advocacy.

We must bring a truly global body of allies (and the whole array of their interlocked interests) to the negotiation table to produce a consensus regarding the appropriate steps for US troop withdrawal from the Middle East. As the United States Government contemplates new fronts in the War on Terror - from the Middle East to Asia to Africa - truly global negotiations with a formal body representing Al Qaeda are becoming increasingly necessary if we are to avert a global economic and humanitarian disaster.

progressives for progress in iraq

assuming a diplomatic solution to the war in iraq involves:

1. cooperation with iraq's neighbors

2. synchronization with the interests of iraq's neighbors

3. fullfillment of our promise to bring greater stability to the region


then the countries most likely to be directly involved include:

kuwait
turkey
saudi arabia
jordan
pakistan
egypt
syria
lebanon
israel
afghanistan
iran


of these countries, we should probably:

1. rule out (at least in the short term) cooperation with iran.

2. secure public political support from saudi arabia, israel, and pakistan.

3. strengthen support with egypt (egypt is home to the league of arab states, and has recently sent boutros boutros-ghali to head the united nations. although egypt has been sited for human rights abuses, there is a growing reform movement, "kifaya").

3. build support with turkey (perhaps leveraging their desire to join the eu by softening up key european states)

4. redeploy troops from iraq to afghanistan (such a redeployment should involve close cooperation with international bodies such as the un and the red crescent)

5. encourage internal political reforms in kuwait.

6. encourage regional efforts with syria (i.e., host a summit)

7. to get the ball rolling, greatly increase direct assistance (both political and economic) to jordan and lebanon (especially jordan)


jordan:

borders syria, iraq, saudi arabia, and israel. shares gulf of acaba with egypt.

jordanians are generally well-educated and pro-western; jordan supported united nations sanctions against iraq. this would seem to be a good groundwork for a constructive relationship.

jordan should be financially compensated for our roles (direct and indirect) in iraq and the arab-israeli war. a support agreement may supplement or resemble the eu-jordan association agreement.

the egypt connection is politically important: jordan shares many tourists with egypt, and egypt has a generally progressive attitude towards us and key allies (such as israel and japan). egypt is also the home of the arab league of

direct assistance could also be an incentive to improve jordanian relations with israel (such as the ending of certain official discriminations against jews).

a stronger jordan may be very good for the region, but may threaten syria. hosting a summit involving jordan and syria may help dissipate this perceived threat.


lebanon:

borders syria and israel. lebanese are generally entreprenurial; lebanon has a demand for tourism, and was once known as the banking capitol of the arab world.

lebanon should be financially compensated (perhaps through trade agreements) for our (indirect) role in the arab-israeli war; the 2006 israeli conflict was especially painful to lebanon because they are still recovering from a civil war. moreover, the redirection of funds to rebuilding efforts puts lebanon in a difficult situation because lebanon has few natural resources and depends heavily on regional commerce. the growing popular reform movements should be encouraged.

we should foster support for a un peacekeeping and rebuilding operation in southern lebanon (israel shouldn't object to this).


hopefully genuine good will in the region will be perceived as indirect good will towards iran. diplomacy in iraq will require a broad, coordinated effort and a serious financial committment, but in the long run, peace should be cheaper than war. right?

diplomacy in iraq

despite military victories in iraq,
it may soon become painfully evident
that unilateralism - as a premise
and as a strategy - and the impact
of the war on neighboring states
must be addressed directly.

if the bush administration means
to prevent this conflict from
shifting in nature from national
to regional, it would seem a viable
course of action would be to include
neighboring states in diplomatic
talks facilitated by the united nations.

nations in the middle east with
existing entrepreneurial and democratic
tendencies, such as lebanon and jordan,
may find their fledgling democratic
ideals bolstered by the opportunity
to meaningfully participate in such a
diplomatic process.