The same goes for Hamas. No one wants to talk to Hamas, but everybody agrees that Hamas is part of the equation.

This idea of not talking to people we don’t like is not working too well for the Bush administration. It is not a wise policy.

If you talk to these people, you may pursuade some of them of go your way. Or you might be able to get them to debate one another. Maybe internal divisions will surface that you could take advantage of. But even without that, your willingness to talk to them, could have a positive effect on those on the outside who are watching and listening.

A moderate who witnesses and hears the conversation between you and the extremists could conclude that you have a better argument, and may lean in your direction especially if you’re willing to back up your words with investment money on the table.

Hell, I’d even talk to al Qaeda itself if I could be relatively assured of not having my head served on a plate.

I agree with your comment completly.

On another note, my concern w/ dialogue w/ opposition groups is that some “opposition groups” are terrorist groups. I do not believe that the MBs are a terrorist orgazation, but the current US administration has classified them as such…until that classification changes, the dialogue should not happen, otherwise where would that end? Which terrorist groups are OK to talk to, which ones aren’t? That’s a slippery and dangerous slope.

However, specifically with the MB in Egypt, US gov’t officials have gotten around this because so many MBs are members of the Parliament. So, US officials meet with Egyptian Parliament members, instead of the US meeting w/ members of the MB (even though it’s the same thing).

However, just opening up a dialogue with them, and with all the opposition groups, is a step in the right direction. Dialogue opens up new possibilities, and creates its own reality.

What is very important is to reach out to that 77% that you’re talking about. We have to compete for their hearts and minds using an approach that is similar to what the Muslim Brotherhood uses:

If the Brotherhood talks about an ideology of Jihad: We should talk about an Ideology of Common Sense.

If the Brotherhood invests in charitable handouts; We should invest some serious dollars in jobs.

If the Brotherhood sells a vision of hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or a cliphate; We should sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

At every turn we should cut the extremists off at the pass, and beat them at their own game. In this manner, we will be able to marginalize the extremists in the eyes of their own people. The extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.

I’d think so. I’m well aware of their history, and some of the most radical theologians have been part of the Brotherhood. However, they’ve been winning seats and have been functioning somewhat productively in parliament. The idea is to open up Egypt’s political landscape, in which I think other parties could beat the Brotherhood in free and fair elections over time. This involves then talking to Egypt’s opposition as a whole. What needs to be accepted is that the Brotherhood is part of that opposition. The new generation of the MB does not reflect its senior leadership I’d say.

With all these grey areas mentioned in the post, do you think it would be wise to ignore this group as it continues to rise in prominence? Talking does not necessarily mean agreeing, however a frank dialogue with the West may go a long way to eradicate some of the suspicions present on both sides. Or it may not but I don’t think it could hurt.