Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
COIN is fundamentally political, and usually negotiations end the insurgency. In principle, I would not be opposed to talking to the enemy - but you also have to understand that when talking to someone you confer legitimacy - they can turn around and use the meeting to show how powerful they are, and sometimes they can use that to revive a dying movement ("look, I brought them to the table"). So proceed with care, but do it where appropriate and understand the second/third order effects.
Well stated Cavguy, and I agree with you that timing, tact, and circumstance are critical factors in determining negotiations, but I think that the concept of "legitimacy" underscores a significant conceptual block that we in the military face on a daily base in a foreign land.

In some ways, the enemy is already legitimate b/c they are native-an attribute we will never have.

Academically, it is refered to as the "meta-game," but my interpretation is that this game is the reality of what happens under the threshold of what we observe and interpret- the "real" environment in which we operate that we continue to attempt to penetrate through reconnaissance, surveillance, sourcing, etc...

True, talking to an enemy provides some legitimacy, but what if the legitimacy is already there outside of our purview. Regardless, any engagement provides the opportunity to gain intelligence and understanding, but I think you're correct in stating that it must be weighed in a cost-benefit analysis.

Just some quick thoughts as I grapple with the subject.

v/r

Mike