{"id":12925,"date":"2014-06-03T01:02:35","date_gmt":"2014-06-03T08:02:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=12925"},"modified":"2014-06-03T01:02:35","modified_gmt":"2014-06-03T08:02:35","slug":"negotiating-with-terrorists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2014\/06\/03\/negotiating-with-terrorists\/","title":{"rendered":"Negotiating with Terrorists"},"content":{"rendered":"

There are two nations on earth, not allied with the US, that could engage the US using conventional military means.  They are China and Russia.  For any other nation or group, engaging the US militarily using conventional means would be suicide.  Therefore those that do fight us use nonconventional warfare.  For propaganda value, we label them terrorists, just like Great Britain labeled US patriots terrorists during the Revolutionary War.  Therefore the notion that we can not negotiate with terrorists is obsolete, with one key exception.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0603POW\"After five years as a prisoner of Afghan militants, U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been returned to American custody<\/a>. But because President Obama released five Afghan detainees from Guantanamo Bay in trade for Bergdahl\u2019s freedom, several Republican lawmakers have attacked the administration for \u201cnegotiating with terrorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Rep. Howard \u201cBuck\u201d McKeon (R-CA) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the exchange \u201cmay have consequences<\/a> for the rest of our forces and all Americans,\u201d because \u201cour terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans.\u201d House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) added that he is \u201cextremely troubled that the United States negotiated with terrorists,\u201d suggesting that the exchange \u201csignals to terrorists around the world a greater incentive to take U.S. hostages.\u201d…<\/p>\n

…National Security Advisor Susan Rice took to several of the Sunday shows to defend the exchange. On This Week, she explained that Bergdahl was not a \u201chostage,\u201d but a \u201cprisoner of war, taken on the battlefield,\u201d and that the U.S. has a \u201csacred obligation\u201d to free such prisoners of war. She also clarified on State of the Union that the U.S. did not negotiate directly<\/a> with the terrorist Haqqani network, but with the government of Qatar, which will hold the five released Taliban prisoners for another year.<\/p>\n

One of the other complaints lodged against the exchange is that President Obama did not provide Congress with the 30-day notice required for releasing prisoners of war. Rice explained that the Departments of Defense and Justice had reasons to be seriously concerned about the urgent state of Sgt. Bergdahl\u2019s health, and noted that Congress had long been informed that such negotiations were already underway…<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Think Progress<\/a>><\/p>\n

First let\u2019s get real.  Contrary to the Republican excuse for condemning Obama, the Taliban (or anyone else with whom we are at war) already has a strong incentive to capture American soldiers.  It\u2019s what battlefield enemies do.<\/font><\/p>\n

Here is a clip of the infamous (in Republican fantasy) Susan Rice in an interview with a Republican mouthpiece at CNN.<\/font><\/p>\n