Negotiating with the non-negotiable

With the military offensive in Afghanistan looking bleak, politicians are considering another route - negotiation with the Taliban.

The thinking is that in exchange for a better future, many of the Taliban will put down their arms. It is said that most fighter are not ideologically driven, but instead, are forced into a life of fighting because it is their only option. If they are offered a better path - not bags of money - but the prospect of an education and jobs they will stop fighting.

Perhaps this solution is unsustainable. Even if we can "buy out" some of the smaller fighters, until we can eradicate the leaders we have very little chance.

This new idea taps into the debate about negotiating with terrorists. In principle, it is wrong to negotiate with people who try to achieve their aims through violence. However, there are those who claim these principles pale into insignifcance when we consider the benefits. If negotiation can ultimately lead to lives being saved, this must be the priority. The British government, under John Major, held secret talks with the IRA which led to the first breakthrough to a ceasefire. The ends justifies the means.

However, the idea of negotiation with the Taliban is nothing less than idealistic. The very nature of terrorists is that they want all or nothing. They are not prepared to make concessions.

Negotiation with the Taliban is unworkable.