How Do You Negotiate With This?

For all of you who think that it's possible to negotiate with terrorists and terrorist regimes, I've got two stories that you need to see.  First is from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.  Earlier this week, he "told a military judge at his arraignment Thursday that he welcomes the death penalty as a way to martyrdom and ridiculed the proceedings as an 'inquisition.'"  Some other quotes from the proceedings:

"I have been seeking martyrdom for five years," said Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged main intermediary between the 19 hijackers and al-Qaida leaders. "I tried for 9/11 to get a visa but I could not."

Asked if he understands that he could be executed if found guilty, Binalshibh said: "If this martyrdom happens today, I welcome it. God is great. God is great. God is great."

The former No. 3 al-Qaida leader explained he believes only in religious "Sharia" law and railed against U.S. President George W. Bush for waging a "crusade war." The judge, wearing a crewcut and black robes, warned Mohammed that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America. But Mohammed said he welcomes the death penalty.

"Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," Mohammed declared. "I will, God willing, have this, by you."

But wait, you might think, isn't this just the mindset of the hardcore leaders of these terrorist groups?  Take a look at this from Little Green Footballs:

Muslim extremist women are challenging al Qaeda's refusal to include - or at least acknowledge - women in its ranks, in an emotional debate that gives rare insight into the gender conflicts lurking beneath one of the strictest strains of Islam.

In response to a female questioner, al Qaeda No. 2 leader Ayman Al-Zawahri said in April that the terrorist group does not have women. A woman's role, he said on the Internet audio recording, is limited to caring for the homes and children of al Qaeda fighters.

His remarks have since prompted an outcry from fundamentalist women, who are fighting or pleading for the right to be terrorists. The statements have also created some confusion, because in fact suicide bombings by women seem to be on the rise, at least within the Iraq branch of al Qaeda.

Another woman signed a more than 2,000-word essay of protest online as Rabeebat al-Silah, Arabic for "Companion of Weapons."

"How many times have I wished I were a man ... When Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri said there are no women in al Qaeda, he saddened and hurt me," wrote "Companion of Weapons," who said she listened to the speech 10 times. "I felt that my heart was about to explode in my chest...I am powerless."

These are mothers that yearn to blow themselves up in jihad!!!

Now, you tell me how likely you think these people are to sit down and negotiate.  Americans need to wake up to the fact that negotiations simply are not possible with the brainwashed mindsets of these radical Islamic terrorists.  And yet, for some mind-boggling reason, liberals refuse to do anything else!

Now, let me share with you what works: victory.  Bret Stephens writes in the Wall Street Journal of examples from all over the world where terrorists are being beaten back with military force:

Sadr City in Baghdad, the northeastern districts of Sri Lanka and the Guaviare province of Colombia have little in common culturally, historically or politically. But they are crucial reference points on a global map in which long-running insurgencies suddenly find themselves on the verge of defeat.

For the week of May 16-23, there were 300 "violent incidents" in Iraq. That's down from 1,600 last June and the lowest recorded since March 2004. Al Qaeda has been crushed by a combination of U.S. arms and Sunni tribal resistance. On the Shiite side, Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army was routed by Iraqi troops in Basra and later crumbled in its Sadr City stronghold.

In Colombia, the 44-year-old FARC guerrilla movement is now at its lowest ebb. Three of its top commanders died in March, and the number of FARC attacks is down by more than two-thirds since 2002. In the face of a stepped-up campaign by the Colombian military (funded, equipped and trained by the U.S.), the group is now experiencing mass desertions. Former FARC leaders describe a movement that is losing any semblance of ideological coherence and operational effectiveness.

In Sri Lanka, a military offensive by the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has wrested control of seven of the nine districts previously held by the rebel group LTTE, better known as the Tamil Tigers. Mr. Rajapaksa now promises victory by the end of the year, even as the Tigers continue to launch high-profile terrorist attacks.

All this is good news in its own right. Better yet, it explodes the mindless shibboleth that there is "no military solution" when it comes to dealing with insurgencies. On the contrary, it turns out that the best way to end an insurgency is, quite simply, to beat it.

Why was this not obvious before? When military strategies fail – as they did in Vietnam while the U.S. pursued the tactics of attrition, or in Iraq prior to the surge – the idea that there can be no military solution has a way of taking hold with civilians and generals eager to deflect blame. This is how we arrived at the notion that "political reconciliation" is a precondition of military success, not a result of it.

The point is not that political avenues shouldn't be explored, but that they are only effective when coupled with effective military force:

[T]hese political approaches only work when the intended beneficiaries can be reasonably confident that they are joining the winning side. Nobody was abandoning the FARC when Mr. Pastrana lay prostrate before it. It was only after Mr. Uribe turned the guerrilla lifestyle into a day-and-night nightmare that the movement's luster finally started to fade.

The sooner we collectively realize and acknowledge this reality, the better off we'll all be.  I doubt liberals will ever get there, so it's up to the rest of us who are willing and able to live in the real world to make the right decisions when it comes to our leaders.

As much as I dislike McCain for any number of reasons, I believe he will remain firm in the fight against Islamic terrorism.  Obama, on the other hand, naively promises appeasement and endless negotiations.  He'll probably be still sitting at the negotiating table when the first nuke destroys an American city, and then he'll be shocked: 'That's not the Ahmadinejad I knew...'

There's my two cents.