How to talk to the enemy: first, understand it’s an enemy
I’ve been perplexed by the weak reaction of so many officials in Britain to the ongoing hostage crisis.
Whoops! I used the “h” word. Apparently that’s a no-no; this Time article reports that President Bush was criticized roundly by John Williams, former Director of News for the British Foreign Service, for using the word “hostage” to refer to the—uh, hostages—during a press conference.
Williams prefers that the captured sailors be called “victims of a misunderstanding that could be resolved.” How nice. This was the way a far more minor incident occurring under his watch in 2004 was treated, and the hostages were released within days.
Williams shows a fundamental lack of comprehension of some basic differences between the two incidents. For starters, in the earlier one, the sailors actually had wandered accidentally into Iranian waters, and they were seized through what appears to have been the overreaction of a local Iranian commander. In the current crisis, however, there’s every reason to believe the incident was planned at the top. In addition, the situation between Iran and the world was quite different in 2004; the general conflict has escalated significantly since then, with sanctions looming for Iran’s nuclear program. Therefore the context for the seizure has changed, and one can assume the Iranians’ motivations and game plan have changed accordingly.
I can’t find a biography of Williams online, but my guess is that, as Director of News, he may have a background in journalism, and believes mightily in the power of words. Now, as a writer myself, I try to use my words carefully. But in a situation such as this it is laughable to think that it would make any positive difference to the fate of the hostages if we call them “unfortunate victims.”
Williams is not alone, however; his attitude has become more and more prevalent. And it is very dangerous when dealing with tyrants such as the ones who run Iran, who don’t respect it and consider it a softness to be exploited, symptomatic of the decline of the backbone of the West. Among other things, this hostage crisis is a form of theater staged to demonstrate Iran’s strength and Britain’s weaknesses to a Muslim culture that operates from an honor/shame perspective.
In my training as a marriage and family therapist, one technique I learned is what is known as the “reframe.” This is a way of using words to soften the harsh judgments family members might make about each other or themselves. Reframes can sometimes help lead to solutions by damping down the antagonisms among family members and help them see things in a different and more hopeful light.
But this presupposes some sort of basic goodwill and rapport that quite simply does not exist in the current situation. And members of families who come to therapy are actually coming to get help, and are usually predisposed to listen to the therapist’s suggestions with at least a modicum of respect and cooperation.
Iran and Britain are engaged in a power struggle, not a family squabble, and they are each operating from extremely different premises about human nature. “Come, let us reason together,” is not the mullahs’ motto, I’m afraid, although much of the Western world wishes it were so.
I wish it were so, also—it would make the prospects for humanity so much rosier. But wishes are not reality, and confusing the two is not a good thing either for individuals such as Williams or for nations such as Britain.
[COMING SOON: rules for negotiating from strength.]
Among other things, this hostage crisis is a form of theater staged to demonstrate Iran’s strength and Britain’s weaknesses to a Muslim culture that operates from an honor/shame perspective.
You know Neo, I never liked you or the SS cast calling it “honor”. It isn’t honor at all. It is cowardice, fear, an ability to bully and terrorize others to make yourself feel better, to increase your status. Is the Mob being honorable by breaking your knee caps because you “disrespected the Don”? *snorts*
Every institution has a code of behavior, I recognize that, but the concept of honor shouldn’t be dragged through the gutter by being associated with such slime.
Reframes can sometimes help lead to solutions by damping down the antagonisms among family members and help them see things in a different and more hopeful light.
You know Neo, by my memory you were very careful not to be confrontational and provoking of aggression when I first began reading your blog. 2004 sometime then, and only regularly about 2005 I believe. I think it came from your family therapist background. A lifetime of trying to settle people down, doesn’t really automatically translate to a brand of Jacksonian “Execute them, hang them in a public square, and make sure we have video tapes of us shooting looters and them dying alone”. I mention this because lately I’ve heard a tougher tone out of you, in a sense a more certain, positive, and confident tone in your description of your position.
You have a natural hesitation against taking drastic and desperate actions that can result in harm. But when you become convinced that this solution and only this solution will help people, you go full steam. I call that integrity, Neo. And Honor. Doing what you need to do to protect those who you value and love, things that you care about, is the core of honor. It is what Hirohito did, it is not what the mullahs, Hitler, and Arafat did.
I am curious about one thing, Neo. Would you have favored the harsh measures necessary in the 21st century, back in say 1980s or such? What did you think about these harsh measures anyways? I’m curious to know, because that is one thing I don’t remember reading about in your A Mind is … Change series.
I wish it were so, also–it would make the prospects for humanity so much rosier.
I wonder if you ever get tired of the death and destruction, given your background. Certainly I have. But it is less now. Because in a sense, Neo, the terrorists have taught us much. They have taught us how to react to high levels of violence and helpless terror. They have taught us what our options are… and they have taught us the price of weakness and lack of spirit and will. Such a lesson is valuable, Neo, for no two forces locked in mortal combat could ever win over the other without becoming, understanding, and learning more about the other. That’s how you win. You learn your opponent’s weaknesses, and to do that you must understand and think like your opponent. This naturally means you become more like him, because you are thinking about his thoughts. If the Bush or the US ever decides to use what we have learned against the terrorists… jelly and cream will be all that would be left of them.
Apparently that’s a no-no; this Time article reports that President Bush was criticized roundly by
Bush should tell “John” to go fauk himself.
Williams prefers that the captured sailors be called “victims of a misunderstanding that could be resolved.”
BS. Can’t even make this stuff up.
In addition, the situation between Iran and the world was quite different in 2004; the general conflict has escalated significantly since then,
Iran was pissed scared in 2004, that was what was up. They were cautious, feeling us out. Pushing, but not hitting.
Sorry neo – your writing’s display a complete lack of basic comprehension of the fundamentals of how we got here; the Iraq war; the concentrated America effort, illegal, to portray Iran as a threat when it is not.
They are not hostages – and look likely to be released shortly thanks to the British change in tone. Which is the goal – not appeasing violent chicken hawks.
Further they were probably in Iranian waters – there has been quite a debate going on that shows that Blair was being a little too cute by saying he was “absolutely certain’ they were in Iraqi waters….
What a surprise that the nazis see this situation differently than the rest of us. Perhaps NatC could explain why the Iranians first said they were in Iraqi waters, then changed the “claimed” position to be two miles further east. And why now, after being caught in their lie, that NatC gives any credence to the Iranians, and says it’s Blair that’s not sure where the sailors really were(boy, oh boy, I can’t wait for his twisted explanation of this one).
TC:
Oh, you got an inside line to Tehran? Released when? Prophesy to us, Oh Prophet!
I just noticed how vulnerable Kharag Island is to an air attack. Only one deep water port with pipes going out to approximately four berths for supertankers. A few JDAMS and Iran is an oil importing country…for good.
So, we have a blackmail hold over quite a few people…A short mission from a carrier and No Mo’ Oil from Kharag…for quite a while.
Also perfect target for an old fashion blockade…pipelines from ashore are also visible. Another asset that can be wasted in short order…
Why Not, I Say; Why Not?
Bomb into submission first, then negotiate. This is what we should have done with Iran in the 1970’s.
Pingback:Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » Latest On Iran Hostage Crisis
Neo,
The PhiBetaCons blog at National Review has a quote from Harvey Mansfield that you might like (April 3 posts, scroll down). Mansfield seems to be describing why you are so often right on.
Ah yes, power politics. Some reports are that there have been some cat and mouse games in the recent past. I would suggest, if that is true, they were probes to see the response from the Brits. If no air cover was called out previously, the Iranians would reasonably expect none during the hostage taking. So they get to embarrass the Coalition and maybe drive a wedge between the Brits and us with little risk. And they can kick back at the West because of the new UN sanctions and US capturing of the 300 or so Iranian agents in Iraq. They have had a few more problems. A general and a couple of subordinates captured in Gaza by the PA and a major defection of a senior member of the elite. So when the rule of law and diplomatic niceties are subordinate to ideology, a temper tantrum seemly was warranted.
One problem with naming the enemy–radical, aggressive Islam fanaticism–is that there is no bright line between what we’ve named and the cough-urf-percentage of the rest of the Muslims who are moderate and peaceful.
How far that number goes could be either scary or politically incorrect.
Number of victims of pacifism in the last century vastly larger than number of victims of militarism,- to such proportion, that it make sense to declare pacifism now to be a criminal ideology and treat it as such. Non-engagement of so called peace-keepers in Srebreniza, Rwanda, Darfur in necessary soldiering doomed thousands and handreds thousand to mass murder. US also are to blame in complicity in murder when they passively observed Suddam’s genocide of Kurds and Shiites after coalition victory in first Gulf war.
Neo,
Im sure there’s a component of appeasement of the enemy as far as liberals use of alternate terminology, but I feel its only half the story. The other half is what you have hit on earlier:
”
In this case, we are being “reframed” by the press and liberal politicians. You can be considered “Islamophobic” for saying the word “Islamofascist”, and terrorist is such a subjective term. Merely another person’s “freedom fighter”.
We cant call a spade a spade ’cause it may work the unwashed and unenlightened into a frenzy and demand the government do something about it.
Im sure Neo, that you can see the benefits of controlling language and information on a mass scale.
You see what diplomacy has done during this recent “misunderstanding”? Everybody wins right? No need for name calling and unhelpful words. Everybody wins.
Now that the Brits are to be released tomorrow, it’s really amusing to see Fox News cast this as a total capitulation by a weak Iraq. 766495
Whoops — “a weak Iran”.
“I’ve been perplexed by the weak reaction of so many officials in Britain to the ongoing hostage crisis”.
I suppose if Britain is viewed as a major military power, then I can understand why someone could be so ‘perplexed’ by the British government’s precautionary diplomatic response. However, the current crisis just exposes how weak and pathetic our political masters really are – without American muscle directly behind it.
Britain was so quick to fly into Iraq or Afghanistan, just as long as it stood shoulder to shoulder with US forces. In reality, Britain’s political elites do not have the stomach to fight Iran on it’s own – hence the need for mealy mouthed words instead.
Yes, exactly, why have a “weak reaction” and “mealy-mouthed words” from pusilanimous diplomats, which um, *did* get the hostages released, when we can have a whacking great war instead?
The rampant contempt around here for diplomacy as the domain of panty-waisted sissies would be pathetic if it weren’t so dangerous. Sometimes you guys sound like a bunch of teenagers who’ve been playing too many videogames.
Yeah, unknown, I guess if I broke into YOUR house and stole your tv, claiming the property line runs through your front room, you would just “talk” me into giving it back.
And it would work.
Unknown, you are the one who sounds young and “naive”.
UB:
“Sometimes you guys sound like a bunch of teenagers who’ve been playing too many videogames.”
Now, now, UB…That kind of rhetoric is un-helpful and counter-productive towards the discussion of ideas. Rather, you should try to be more tolerant of other peoples points of view, and really, just listen and be open to new thoughts, new ideas.
Only in this way, can we be more fruitful in our discussions of the issues and then we can all learn from them and grow and be like really fantastic people. We are not going to get there with you calling us a bunch of teenagers, which is really unfair and hurtful and mean spirited.
Let us all move forward in the spirit of togetherness.
Peace out!!
UB,
It’s not entirely self-evident that British diplomacy was the decisive factor as to why the Iranian authorities decided to release the captured soldiers. For all we know, it could have been the releasing yesterday of Iranian spies caught in Iraq, by the American’s that done it trick.
“For all we know, it could have been the releasing yesterday of Iranian spies caught in Iraq, by the American’s that done it trick.
I doubt it and sincerely hope not. That would only invite more hostage taking by Iran. Cause you know its not like Iran is not going to give up sending ’emissaries’ to Iraq.
sfgate.comMore misinformation. The Iranian “spies” were not released yesterday, a missing Iranian diplomat “resurfaced:”
“Some experts suggested there was a bit more trade-off behind the release than either side was publicly admitting. They noted the sudden release this week of an Iranian diplomat abducted in Iraq two months ago — Iran had alleged U.S. involvement in his disappearance, which the United States denied — and a report by IRNA that Iran will gain access to five Iranians captured during a U.S. raid on their office in Irbil in January. Until now, they have not been allowed to meet with Iranian diplomats.”
“U.S. officials called the diplomat’s resurfacing a coincidence. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed Wednesday that the United States had received a request for access to the five detainees, but said he did not know if that request had been approved.”
A one-for-15 swap hardly seems like something anyone would consider a fair trade.
Sorry guys, but it looks like you’ll have to wait a little longer for WWIII. In the mean time you can get back to playing “Wing Commander”
So, tell me, UB, how’s that “harmonic convergence” working out?
Between NeoN and Dr. Sanity, I’m seeing the same themes over and over. This could be tiring, but instead it’s forcing me to think, think, think … and I’ve had a thought.
The Loonytunes Left (LtL) seems determined to blame their own civilization for something. Blame ourselves, blame ourselves, blame ourselves. One can almost hear in this the old declaration Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. All the old sins they have declared to be virtues, but they have this voice whispering in their ear that they have some something wrong. And so they answer it. They find the place where they haven’t gone far enough, where they haven’t carried the “New Virtues” far enough, and they hammer that one place, and keep hammering, louder and louder, to drown out any voice that says the the old virtues are the real ones, and the new ones just false gods, idols made by men to serve the desires (distinct from the needs) of their creators. And the voice keeps whispering Contrition, and so they demand greater and greater exercises of their new virtues, not only from themselves, but from everyone around them, determined to keep the sinners around them from falling back into the unthinkable old virtues that they have forsaken.
And that is why the LtL and the Islamofascists so often seem to be reading the same playbook. Each abhors the real virtues, and is determined to silence and destroy them so that they may substitute their own.
Excellent point, neo, and I look forward to your follow-up. I see it as an especially useful point today, because of John Kerry’s perception about Pelosi’s trip to chat with dictators. (Can find the link now, but I blogged about it today, so it’s somewhere on my site.)
Kerry remains committed to the belief that, if we just sit down and have a nice, cozy little kaffe klatch with those committed to our destruction, we’ll show them what nice people we are, and everything will be okey-dokey. It seems to be a particularly Democratic failing, because I can’t escape the memories of both Roosevelt and Truman being charmed by old “Uncle” Joe Stalin, mass murderer extraordinaire.
I think it would surprise the conversationalists on the Left mightily if they could finally be brought to understand that some particularly bad people perceive cozy discussions as a sign of weakness, not as an opening for fruitful negotiation. As you said of your therapy sessions, reframing only works amongst people of a certain amount of good will.
Pingback:gameboys 2007