Cuz We Said So

To discard understanding of another implies there is nothing other than destruction that can end conflict. That is a narrow (and dangerous) view.

Certainly it would be, but as I have noted, it is not my view. Understanding of and sensitivity to the feelings of an adversary are critical, not only to negotiate to a settlement when one is possible, but also to recognize when a negotiated settlement is not possible, and, in that circumstance, to allow you to efficiently defeat him.

I think many people struggle with this latter understanding because they so very much want to avoid a fight that they rebel against considering the horrible realities that a full understanding brings.

For example, I believe that to really understand our adversary in this conflict, one needs to recognize first that they believe precisely what you reject: they believe there is nothing other than destruction that can end the conflict. They feel strongly enough about it that they are willing to kill anybody who feels differently, and die horribly to advance their agenda, which includes your death or conversion to radical Islam.

One needs to understand the principles of successful negotiation, and how they relate to our current circumstance. One key to this is understanding the idea that in any negotiation, a negotiator must go in knowing what his or her best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is, and must be willing to walk away from the table if the opponent doesn't offer something at least as good. This means you need to not only understand what you are willing to give up, and what you're not, but you also need to get as good a handle as possible on what your opponent's minimum outcomes and BATNA are, so you know what he's willing to give up.

Unfortunately there is every indication that radical Islam's minimum acceptable outcome is the destruction of Israel, the fall of the United States, and domination of the world by a radical theocracy of their devision, and its BATNA is ongoing war until they or we are dead. For most of us in the West, negotiation is therefore a non-starter.

One needs to understand that our opponents perceive our desire to negotiate and employ diplomacy not as a potential route to non-violent resolution, but as signs of weakness to be manipulated to their advantage. They view concessions as retreat. They do not seek non-violent resolution, and believe that we can be defeated because we do. They believe we are soft and weak, and can be easily demoralized by the simple expedient of killing people until we run off to cower. That's how they interpreted Beirut and Somalia. That's what they hope to repeat in Iraq.

One must understand that there are some circumstances where there is an alternative to destruction, but also that there are others where there are not--and one must be willing to acknowledge when one is facing the latter, no matter how much one wants to avoid a fight.

One must understand that altering behavior is desirable, but also recognize that change requires motivation: the person doing the behavior has to want to alter the behavior. And unfortunately, the other side is pretty happy with their behavior the way it is: they believe they are beating us. One must recognize that if the other side is not motivated to change the behavior-as in this case they are not --your recourse is to either accept the behavior, kill or capture the person doing the behaving, or kill enough of his friends that he wants to change.

And, as a corollary to this, one must understand that even when there is ultimately a peaceful solution available to a conflict, it is sometimes reachable only after there is destruction--once your opponent has suffered enough that war is no longer their preferred course. Then you can negotiate. That's why peace often lies only on the other side of war.