I’ve been thinking about France a lot, and I think that there is a certain logic to the current system. Basically right now, you don’t know what you are going to get. You might get your ransom. You might get a bunch of SEALs knocking on your door. You might get silence. Even within a specific country, it’s hard to know if their policy is going to stay the same.
So it becomes more difficult to really have a kidnapping strategy. Are you fundraising? Are you looking for media? Are you just causing trouble? People can and do kidnap, but as long as it’s unpredictable it’s hard to really make the most of if. But if we all had a coordinated response, that would be something that could be used against us effectively.
Anyway, this is upsetting. Nobody should murder anyone, and especially not reporters who were just doing their job. But life is also tough, the world is going through a pretty rough patch right now, and there’s a lot of people dying in some pretty horrific ways as we speak. I don’t think we are ever gojng to make it 100% safe for people in war zones any time soon.
France has paid the most and also has, by far, the most kidnapping victims. It’s not even a close thing. That also suggests that certain nationalities are being deliberately targeted for the ransom money.
And rather than leading to more executions, it looks like the ransoms ARE the point, based on the limited information we have. If ransoms weren’t paid, it looks like there’d be fewer overall kidnappings, as evidenced by the correlation between past ransoms paid and victims.
Where do you guys think ISIS gets the money to buy weapons and produce slick media products?
Their main source of revenue is kidnapping. France and the people paying them are the ones who created them. It’s one thing to pay millions of euros to save a guy. It’s another when you know that the money is going to the psychopaths who are murdering their way across the middle east. Reminds me of how Stalin used to boast that the capitalists would sell him the rope he was going to strangle them with.
Well, in most of these hostage cases, the initial demand is not anywhere near the end result. I wouldn’t put too much stock in that number as a measure of their reasonability.
As far a negotiating goes, I don’t think it’s inherently wrong, but I think you need to evaluate how likely the group is to become a legitimate representative of the people. Most terror groups “end” because they join the political process.
[QUOTE=RAND]
All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa’ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Policymakers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. The authors report that religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups and rarely achieve their objectives. The largest groups achieve their goals more often and last longer than the smallest ones do. Finally, groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and less likely to have religion as their motivation. The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa’ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa’ida.
[/QUOTE]
So if the experts who know about ISIL think their end game is legitimate governance, albeit one which condemns Western values, then paying ransoms may actually hasten the processes of incorporation and achieving legitimacy, thus resulting in less violence long term. I don’t know enough about ISIL to speculate, but there are certainly cases where negotiating with, and paying money to terrorists makes sense.
ISIL is an expansionist and violently bigoted organisation. You might as well claim we should have rolled over and let Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan take what they wanted.
There are dozens of violent bigoted governments in existence, and we do business and cooperate with many of them. You completely missed the point of my comment and the study done by knowledgeable people who have studied terrorism (read: not you). Military responses and general refusal to diplomatically engage with terrorists often doesn’t work to end their their terrorism. You can make and argument that ISIL is in the class of groups whose leaders can be killed in order end their violence, but this idea that acting like a tough guy today (because appeasement didn’t work with the Nazis 70+ years ago) is prudent is nonsense. The notion that not engaging diplomatically yields better results in all cases is demonstrably false.
As I said, I have no idea how this will all play out, nor have I done much reading on how likely such an event is. My general point was the hard line of, “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” is foolish in large part because today’s terrorist are often tomorrow’s governments we want/need to work with. Given that FACT, the reluctance to pay ransoms based on the notion that it just funds more terrorism is less sound because it may very likely hasten the transition of a terror organization to legitimacy and less violence.
I fully support not paying ransom but can’t understand a refusal to negotiate. Does the US ignore any statement from the kidnappers or do we just refuse to reply to their messages? How do we tell the kidnappers ‘no’ or explain to them the revenge we intend to bring if not by negotiation?
Well, the US’s official policy is that we don’t negotiate with terrorists [except when we do].
However, I’m not aware of us ever paying ransom, and I believe this particular situation is one of the best examples of when that is the proper course of action. These guys are making a business out of kidnapping and using they money to fuel a reign of terror. Just because you don’t pay ransom doesn’t mean you don’t talk to them if you think some benefit can come out of talking.
You left out the most important word: expansionist. Your cite is a study of many different terrorist groups, including 24 whose goal is classified under “Empire-building”. Of those, only one has ended as a result of joining the political process - the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Your argument that other terrorist groups with other goals have gone straight is less important than the fact that other terrorist groups with the same goals don’t.
Which again is a factor in whether we should negotiate in THIS case, not whether negotiation with terrorists is prudent. Even so, if this “expansionist” group has a good chance of taking over Syria or elsewhere, negotiations could be helpful in the long term.
The US should not pay, but I don’t think that anyone who negotiates on behalf of hostages should be punished for paying either. Take a moral stance if you must, but remember that concepts are poor substitutes for the feelings of actual human beings
For folks who haven’t read the article linked by Great Antibob, the New York Times found a strong correlation between a nation’s willingness to pay ransom and the kidnapping of that nation’s citizens:
But should the rest of us pay? I mean, how many millions of dollars do you have for ransom money? A couple thousand? Nobody is kidnapping your loved one for $2000 dollars.
The millions of dollars that we pay to kidnappers are plowed right back into MORE KIDNAPPING OPERATIONS.
Yes, if I had a million dollars, and that money could save my child’s life, I’d pay. But I sure as heck wouldn’t pay a million dollars to save anyone other than my child, and that’s because it’s my kid.
We already don’t pay millions of dollars to save people’s lives here in the US. You think an inner city kid who needs a million dollars for a toenail transplant has taxpayers falling all over themselves pushing money into their hands?
Nonsense post, Foley was kidnapped before we were engaged in bombing, and you present no meaningful argument whatsoever to suggest they’re any more or less likely to kidnap people in response to bombings.
The only “nonsense” here is the idea that ISIL couldn’t see a new opportunity to leverage a kidnapped American. It’s unlikely that it’s a coincidence they killed him so recently after we started bombing after holding him for so long. These guys are not amateurs, which is what makes them scary.