Has the US's philosophy on terrorism changed?

[Siegmund]

The US has repeated, over and over, for the last forty years or so: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. Period."

We are currently fighting what is called a War on Terror in various parts of the country.

As a result, I am very puzzled by the news today that the US is offering a $200,000 reward for the whereabouts of three missing (presumed kidnapped) soldiers.

Now, to me, this means we've now established a beautiful little system whereby soldiers can be kidnapped and held for ransom, and the kidnapper doesn't even have to send us a ransom note. Yeah, let's reward each successful kidnapping with a cash infusion to to the terrorists if they give back the victim to us.

It sums up in a nutshell why the old "we never negotiate" line made good sense - anything we give up to get back the prisoners becomes an asset for our enemy, and encourages them to do it again. It's one of the few really hard-line stances all of the previous administrations have agreed on.

It amazes me that our current people - the ones who have been beating the terrorism drum the loudest, nonstop for the last six years - are the ones who choose to soften this rule.

This not being the politics board, I'd prefer to see the thread here discuss the pros and cons of a country's attitude toward terrorism, rather than be purely an argument about whether the current administration blew this.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]

The US has repeated, over and over, for the last forty years or so: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. Period."

We are currently fighting what is called a War on Terror in various parts of the country.

As a result, I am very puzzled by the news today that the US is offering a $200,000 reward for the whereabouts of three missing (presumed kidnapped) soldiers.

Now, to me, this means we've now established a beautiful little system whereby soldiers can be kidnapped and held for ransom, and the kidnapper doesn't even have to send us a ransom note. Yeah, let's reward each successful kidnapping with a cash infusion to to the terrorists if they give back the victim to us.

It sums up in a nutshell why the old "we never negotiate" line made good sense - anything we give up to get back the prisoners becomes an asset for our enemy, and encourages them to do it again. It's one of the few really hard-line stances all of the previous administrations have agreed on.

It amazes me that our current people - the ones who have been beating the terrorism drum the loudest, nonstop for the last six years - are the ones who choose to soften this rule.

This not being the politics board, I'd prefer to see the thread here discuss the pros and cons of a country's attitude toward terrorism, rather than be purely an argument about whether the current administration blew this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're suggesting that offering reward for info leading to recovery of missing servicemen is going to create a market for stealing servicemen, then I think you are out in left field. There are easier ways to score some cash than to attemp to kidnap US soldiers and then trust that the US govt will pay you off and those soldiers or others won't give some vital piece of info that will lead to your untimely demise under a rain of guided munitions.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're suggesting that offering reward for info leading to recovery of missing servicemen is going to create a market for stealing servicemen, then I think you are out in left field. There are easier ways to score some cash than to attemp to kidnap US soldiers and then trust that the US govt will pay you off and those soldiers or others won't give some vital piece of info that will lead to your untimely demise under a rain of guided munitions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I doubt we would be paying off anybody who was in on it. I imagine we would investigate and interrogate the source pretty thoroughly. We have a $50 million reward out for info on where to find bin Laden. You don't see bin Laden turning himself in to collect the reward.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're suggesting that offering reward for info leading to recovery of missing servicemen is going to create a market for stealing servicemen, then I think you are out in left field. There are easier ways to score some cash than to attemp to kidnap US soldiers and then trust that the US govt will pay you off and those soldiers or others won't give some vital piece of info that will lead to your untimely demise under a rain of guided munitions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I doubt we would be paying off anybody who was in on it. I imagine we would investigate and interrogate the source pretty thoroughly. We have a $50 million reward out for info on where to find bin Laden. You don't see bin Laden turning himself in to collect the reward.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I had never thought of this before, though I'm not sure how often a 'reward' is offered. I think it's entirely possible that it's set up in such a way that the OP is right, and that the kidnappers could use this to extract ransom.

Bin Laden isn't a good example, because that requires turning over one of 'their own'. All they have to do here is tie the kidnapees in a basement, leave the house and never come back, and have someone provide the tip to the location. It would be extraordinarily difficult to determine if a random Iraqi was in league with the kidnappers. I mean, the biggest issue there right now is that we can't tell the bad guys from the good.

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]

As a result, I am very puzzled by the news today that the US is offering a $200,000 reward for the whereabouts of three missing (presumed kidnapped) soldiers.

Now, to me, this means we've now established a beautiful little system whereby soldiers can be kidnapped and held for ransom, and the kidnapper doesn't even have to send us a ransom note. Yeah, let's reward each successful kidnapping with a cash infusion to to the terrorists if they give back the victim to us.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what "system" you're talking about. This looks like a one-time, isolated incident kind of thing.

[Lestat]

I wouldn't even try to predict anything this incompetent administration is thinking, but I wouldn't call offering a reward for missing soldiers as negotiating with terrorists.

The terrorists aren't demanding a reward. On the contrary, they increased their threats towards the soldiers if the US didn't ease up on their quest to find them. So I would consider this far from giving in to terrorists.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be extraordinarily difficult to determine if a random Iraqi was in league with the kidnappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not as difficult as you think given the means available. One can track a city-wide area using today's surveillance technology deployed in theater. You could play back tapes to determine where that Iraqi was previously, who he met with, and where he's going from thereafter using airborne surveillance assets and he'd never know it.

[m_the0ry]

Obviously it has. The 'no negotiation' policy says outright that Terrorism is a threat that has no socioeconomic power and therefore it is idle. This was recently disproven beyond reasonable doubt with 9/11 and other blowback events: gas prices, hostage taking etc.

We will see soon that terrorists must be negotiated. A key catalyst in this progression is the fact that nuclear weapons and other WMD's are increasing in accessibility. In the 1960's putting a 'price' on a nuclear weapon was unheard of. Now, there is a healthy supply and demand market for WMD's and the weapons go to the highest bidder. The mean price is plummeting. What happens when everyone and anyone can get their hands on a weapon that can kill tens of thousands?

The only defense against this scenario is to present yourself such that there is no motive for someone to make you a target; e.g. total appeasement.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be extraordinarily difficult to determine if a random Iraqi was in league with the kidnappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not as difficult as you think given the means available. One can track a city-wide area using today's surveillance technology deployed in theater. You could play back tapes to determine where that Iraqi was previously, who he met with, and where he's going from thereafter using airborne surveillance assets and he'd never know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy on the '24' reruns...