A truce with Osama?

It's been quite a while since I last posted - here's an article that caught my attention today. The Christian Science Monitor argues that it might not be so absurd to take up OBL's offer of a truce between al Qaeda and the US. The paper first observes that despite our cowboy rhetoric, this nation (and practically every other) has negotiated with terrorists - repeatedly. After laying out several examples, the column gets to its crux:

[T]he US invasion of Iraq has been judged by many experts as the premier recruiting tool for the global jihadist movement. Simply put, there are more anti-US Muslims willing to use terror to strike at us today than there were on Sept. 11, 2001.

If our goal is to reverse this trend, the question is simple: Are we better off negotiating with Mr. bin Laden? If we can capture or kill him, certainly the US can rightfully claim justice has been served against the perpetrators of 9/11. Because revenge is the sweetest of our dark sweet dreams, bin Laden's demise will bring no small degree of personal satisfaction to many people. But if we kill him with a well-aimed smart bomb, or if he remains in hiding as a living symbol of a growing anti-US resistance in the Muslim world, will the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan lay down their arms? Leading US government officials have said time and again that bin Laden's death or capture will not engender these results. Thus, if our wisest men have decided that our present policy toward bin Laden will not help reduce the threat of terrorism, what might help? Does our yearning for revenge outweigh the potential value we might gain by negotiating with bin Laden?

Now there's a good question. I would shed no tears for Osama should a cruise missle turn him to goo - even as someone who opposes capital punishment, assasination, and covert military "hits," I admit that there are few people on this planet who deserve a terrifyingly short life expectancy more than OBL. Bloodlust is a powerful force, and a passion that drives no small amount of American foreign and domestic policy these days.

But what if our passion for revenge stands in the way of (or at least does not help) our essential need for security?

Perhaps a dose of pragmatism is called for here, as unappetizing as that might be to a red meat-craving public.

If the goal is to make Americans happy, then the hunt for Osama makes much sense. But if the goal is to keep Americans safe (as this administration has insisted to justify all kinds of unappetizing things), then it makes sense at least to explore the possibilities of negotiation.

True, bin Laden will most likely turn out to be false - it seems to be a common flaw among criminals. But, as the Monitor points out, even a failed attempt at negotiation might improve American esteem in the world, while undermining OBL's legitimacy in the Muslim world.

A well-placed cruise missle, as satisfying as it might be, would give us neither.

Correction: The op-ed piece cited is the writing of Douglas A. Borer, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Though published in the Christian Science Monitor, it does not reflect the position of the paper.