CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah

[Bob's World]

Actually Karzai is inviting the Taliban to help form the government in Kabul, and it makes tremendous sense.

Even British COIN recognizes the value of giving members of the insurgency real, but not too powerful, positions in the government help resolve an insurgency. Takes away their position that they are excluded from legal participation, and also forces them to have to actually perform, or merely be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

The Levant is an emotional issue for many, and that clouds clear thinking, it certainly clouds US policy toward the region.

[William F. Owen]

Even British COIN recognizes the value of giving members of the insurgency real, but not too powerful, positions in the government help resolve an insurgency.

I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.

That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"

[Bob's World]

I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.

That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"

The arms issues is always a sticky one. Its the classic trust issue in any "Mexican stand-off" - who puts their gun down first? My personal position is that an armed populace is a critical component for keeping governments in check. The very fact that an armed populace is so challenging to a government in times of insurgency is the reason why the populace must remain armed. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

The problem, of course, is not the arms, but rather the motivation of populace to use them illegally to coerce changes in State behavior. Better when they are used in the passive role of the State not getting into certain bad behavior because they know the people are armed.

I would take the position that it is for the Government, the Counterinsurgent, to make the first move. To bring leadership into government (and not just anyone, the fact is that some are simply too dirty by their deeds and they will have to settle by sending in a Lieutenant who has less blood on his hands to move forward as an official in the new government) first, and then require the leadership of the movenment to use their influence to stop the illegal use of the populaces weapons.

I always discourage any talk of weapon's turn-in programs as short-sighted, impractical, and not likely to produce the very COIN effects that are desired by the program.

An Armed and Informed populace with a Voice and a Vote is the "Fourth Branch" of government in the US. This is what keeps the other three branches from getting in cahoots with each other to the detriment of liberty "for our own good."

[Dayuhan]

I would take the position that it is for the Government, the Counterinsurgent, to make the first move. To bring leadership into government (and not just anyone, the fact is that some are simply too dirty by their deeds and they will have to settle by sending in a Lieutenant who has less blood on his hands to move forward as an official in the new government) first, and then require the leadership of the movement to use their influence to stop the illegal use of the populaces weapons.

The problem with this formulation, to me, is that when a movement has its own army the government no longer has the capacity to require or compel them to do anything they don't want to do. I very much doubt that Hizballah, Hamas, or the Taliban see their arms as "the populace's weapons", or that they have they any intention of placing their armed forces under the command of any government they cannot control. Why should they?

Sure, the Karzai government can offer participation to the Taliban. The predictable response is that this can only be discussed when the foreigners leave. The situation on the ground doesn't change, and the Taliban reinforce the perception that they are not an insurgency fighting Karzai, but a resistance movement fighting a foreign occupier. Of course if the foreigners leave the Taliban won't be joining the Karzai government, they'll be trying to replace it.

I can't see any reason why Hizballah would voluntarily turn over command of their armed forces to the Lebanese government, or why Hamas would turn over theirs to the PA? What would they gain? What's the point of making offers that will surely be seen as completely pointless, and will surely be refused?