In the news this morning two Italian women that were being held in Iraq as hostages have been released.

There is still some speculation as to whether a ransom payment was involved or not:


However, I don't think that is necessarily important for this discussion. For as long as I can remember in the news and in movies the United States and in fact most places have had a policy that we "do not negotiate with terrorists/criminals". You have seen it time and time again in action.

Note: I want to state up front (before someone makes an assumption and goes on a rant) that I am not suggesting we start negotiating with terrorists. The following questions are meant to be neutral and explore the policy we have in place.

Questions for debate:
1. Does the hardline policy of "no negotiation" still fit today's times and circumstances?

2. Is there a way to have a dialog with these groups without necessarily making concessions?

3. What are the pros and cons of either approach as you see them?

1. Does the hardline policy of "no negotiation" still fit today's times and circumstances?

We've negotiated with terrorists before. Iran hostage crisis comes to mind. And if it were Bush's daughter, we'd negotiate. I think the policy is cruel and senseless in this case because even if no kidnapper gets money they'll keep doing it for psychological reasons.

2. Is there a way to have a dialog with these groups without necessarily making concessions?

Doubtful. They're going to the trouble and risk of kidnapping people because they want something we're not giving them.

3. What are the pros and cons of either approach as you see them?

In this situation (Us and other nations acting as an invading force in another country) I see no advantage to the hardline. In other situations, it might cut down on kidnapping. But most of the time it's probably better to pay up and try to catch or trail the kidnappers at the exchange point. We have tracking technology and aerial surveillance that's pretty good and worth employing.

QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 29 2004, 07:25 AM)

1. [/B]NO NEGOTIATION[B] is the only way we will ever keep kidnappers from accosting any and every unarmed civilian they find. If we made payouts, the stakes would continually raise and a "revolving door" would begin. As you've seen, other nations such as Korea and Japan didn't negotiate as they knew there would be dire consequences. We'd never want to turn kidnapping US citizens into a profitable venture.

2. I believe that dialog with the kidnappers wouldn't be particularly effective. However, I am confident that if we fought fire with fire there would be more apprehension from these groups to kidnap US citizens. If a terrorist organization knew that in the event that they were caught kidnapping American civilians that their families would be held captive. That their assets and homes would be seized and their villages blockaded.
Furthermore, as we've seen, civilians are the ones being kidnapped. How come they don't attempt to pick up US Marines anymore? That answer is quite apparent. How difficult is it to pick up an unarmed truck driver? hmmm...

3. The draw back to this approach is that "innocent" civilians are being lost to these savages. Aid workers, construction workers, and assorted support personnel are being plucked from the earth simply for being at the wrong place/time. They generally neither come from places of influence or affluence, and their means by which to negotiate on their own are limited. But what choices do we have? We can't open the door to "kidnap fest 2004" in the middle east can we?

I say we employ the same ideals that Isreal does with the Palestinians. We fight the groups at the source with fierce and unweilding violence. These insurgents aren't used to the fight being brought to their doorsteps. Affluent middle-easterners aren't used to having assets seized and destroyed due to their involvment. Their families haven't been shot and their homes haven't been invaded. It's time to start...

1. Does the hardline policy of "no negotiation" still fit today's times and circumstances?

Yes, this particular kidnapping from what I have heard was done by criminals out for money rather than terrorist who want a political agenda. I would also negotiate with money pay to save one so they can fund killing 100 more. not a terribly efficient form of negotiation.






2. Is there a way to have a dialog with these groups without necessarily making concessions?


Easily. This is the mentality of the al Zarqawi group




Scotsman
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/inter...m?id=1127282004






3. What are the pros and cons of either approach as you see them?

Negotiation only legitimizes their acts and undermine the local government who should act as the broker. Ransom payment to these people only gives them more money to fund their attacks. Either of these encourage anyone with a gripe against the US to take hostages in hopes they will either get their demands fulfilled or their pockets lined with cash.

3. What are the pros and cons of either approach as you see them?

It depends entirely on the individuals, and the circumstance surrounding the possible negotiations. The "we will not negotiate with terrorists" line is only a soundbyte and half policy to prove that President B or whomever is tough on crime. As above, if it were Bush's daughters, he'd negotiate. If it was nuclear holocaust being threatened, he'd better negotiate. But if it's just the lives of a couple of American service people, its better to just let them die to prove a point.

That point that is being proven isn't necessarily wrong. I agree that notoriously giving in to the demands of kidnappers sets one up to have kidnappings in the future (or whatever crime). If a particular group of people feel that it is profitable to kidnap americans, and they think that's morally ok, they are going to do it. Considering our foreign policy in the middle east, I would want to do everything possible to lower the risk for the unfortunate American souls working their jobs in Iraq or elsewhere. So "we will not negotiate with terrorists" has some merit.

So where, oh where is the distinction between what we will negotiate for and what we won't?

I can't say that I would approve of one approach over the other. I believe that the best approach is just to be objective about the risks. If you support the war or don't support the war, it doesn't much matter. It is happening, and people are dying all the time. As a humanist I would like to take the path that saves the most lives, the utilitarian path. So each individual case requires distinction.

1. Does the hardline policy of "no negotiation" still fit today's times and circumstances?
It never has fit - haven't you ever heard of plea bargaining? What is that, if not negotiating with criminals?
Certainly there doesn't have to be public negotiation, but there has to be some kind of mutual understanding - witness the use of codewords by the IRA, as one example. Of course, I suppose that the IRA aren't really terrorists any more, and in these days of website videos, there is no need for coded claims of responsibility in the media, as you can just put up a web page and let the journalists do the work for you.
But to all the "no negotiation, under any circumstances, ever" proponents, can you give a single historical example of any conflict that was resolved with no negotiation whatsoever? (Even WW2 ended by two groups of men sitting in a room and signing a piece of paper, even if one side imposed no conditions other than "don't drop any more nukes on us please!")

2. Is there a way to have a dialog with these groups without necessarily making concessions?
Yes - in private. And in tandem with infiltration and covert/military police action against them. This is the strategy that made it possible to have a peace process in Northern Ireland - 15 years ago, that looked every bit as intractible as Iraq does now (albeit on a different scale). You don't beat terrorists by being stronger than them, or more ruthless than they are - you do it by being smarter.

As things stand today, I think the most important factor encouraging hostage taking in Iraq is not the promise of achieving political and/or monetary goals, but having guaranteed round-the-clock global news coverage.

3. What are the pros and cons of either approach as you see them?
In this environment, I think the only thing that could really discourage hostage taking & hostage execution (for which read murder) would be some kind of special forces raid that resulted in the internet publication of videos showing the beheading of the hostage takers. Sending the very specific message of "try this any more and you'll be the ones being decapitated with a blunt breadknife". Especially if it appears on the same militant websites as the current unsavoury batch.
I think it would have to be thatspecific, though - simply dropping bombs and pulling down houses on suspected terrorists, as the Israelis do, will inevitably create more bystander casualties, in turn creating more anti-government feeling, and ultimately more terrorists.

What an excellent assessment of the question of kidnapping, Hero.

I will add a few observations.

1. Does the hardline policy of "no negotiation" still fit today's times and circumstances?

No, we always 'negotiate' but we seldom let anyone know how far we go in meeting demands. A a kidnapper who wants to negotiate always does so with a laundry list of demands. That laundry list may have two, three, ten or a dozen demands but the first demand is ALWAYS listen to me, I want to say the following and for you to do thus and such to insure the release of my hostage(s).

Not negotiating would mean no contact or statements to anyone, the public or kidnappers included. As is usually the case and was in the situation involving the most recently beheaded Americans, the press made ignoring their demands and ignoring their posistions impossible. The first 'concession' to the kidnappers was made when their demands were made public. The second occurred when we said there were only TWO women being held and we named them. It told the kidnappers that the other women being held by the new Iraqi government may have been known about but were being held by the Iraqis rather than the U.S.

2. Is there a way to have a dialog with these groups without necessarily making concessions?

Dialog is what these groups and all kidnappers MUST have. From the barricaded estranged father who kidnaps his own children to Al Qaeda, they all start by making their cases and listing their demands. Question 2 states the basis of hostage negotiation - Listen and respond. Meeting the demands and negotiating was what Hero so eloquently explained in his post.

Example: The estranged Dad gets a cell phone, a case of Coke and some sandwiches and a trained negotiator to listen to his frustrations with the court system that "robbed" him of his children. Will he be set free? Of course not. A case in Florida recently went so far as to stage a fake feed of a "Special Report" where a judge resigned on TV. The suspect was fooled by the supposed real TV footage "broadcasted" over the TV where he was barricaded. The judge's resignation was scripted and done solely to trick the suspect.

3. What are the pros and cons of either approach as you see them?

I do not think we should APPEAR to negotiate with hostage-takers or terrorists but certain scenarios will and have demanded a dialog and usually some give and take.

In the past, we had Iran-Contra, the Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge and many others that didn't dominate the headlines as much as those situations.

All this said, terrorist realize their actions create certain REACTIONS. Any time an under-powered, under-manned and under-funded group of people believe there is no other way to achieve their goals, they will ALWAYS look for OTHER ways to be heard.

Modern terrorism was born during the French Algerian occupation during the early fifties. It was a product of the FLN. Soon, the PLO copied those tactics with Yasser Arafat even visiting FLN leaders to learn their tactics.

Terrorism is believed by its perpetrators to be the ONLY way to achieve their goals. Granted, their goals can be morally abhorrent and totally without value according to most civilizations but nevertheless, the ARE their goals.

Check out more information here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/1954

Go to the year 1954 and look for "October 31st" and click on "Algerian War for Independence". (Not on topic but an interesting aside is a headline from February 10, 1954 concerning what Eisenhower said about Viet Nam.)

I'm surprised I found this news item buried so deeply. I was looking for articles about the dangers to contractors in Iraq to try to convince my brother not to go over to that hellhole, and discovered this:

Did you know...

and a list is provided whether they were killed, released, still missing or escaped.