“A very successful tactic”

posted at 4:05 pm on August 2, 2007 by Bryan

Kidnapping innocents and threatening to kill them in exchange for freeing terrorists, that is.

Newsweek, the magazine that got people killed when it published a bogus story about US troops flushing a Koran at Gitmo, has gained access to several Taliban commanders. Through these commanders it has learned about the 21 South Korean hostages the Taliban continues to hold in Ghazni, Afghanistan. The four-page article is fascinating and worth a read, in that it details the Taliban’s ongoing campaign of brutality against civilians of all backgrounds, and the impressive access that Newsweek has gained. It’s a pity that Newsweek’s reporters didn’t call in the US military to help trace out the Talibanis’ satellite phone calls. Evidently it’s too much to expect basic humanity of MSM reporters anymore.

In an interview with Britain’s Channel 4 news last month, Dadullah called kidnapping “a very successful policy.” The insurgents have certainly been actively engaged in it. Besides the Koreans, the Taliban have kidnapped at least 41 Afghan civilians and killed at least 23 of them, while 18 remain missing, according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which called the Taliban’s kidnapping policy a “war crime.” Another Taliban group is still holding a German hostage in Wardak province, just north of Kabul, after having executed his German co-worker last week. When Abdullah’s group first heard of the kidnapping of the two Germans, it contacted the hostage takers in Wardak hoping that that insurgent group would try to get commander Daro Khan freed in exchange for the Germans. But the Taliban unit holding the Germans refused to cooperate.

The Dadullah quoted above is this guy:

One of the freed Taliban commanders, Mansor Dadullah, is now directing suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and American forces from his redoubt on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

He was freed in the last hostage go-round, and he’s out there planning more attacks. The Karzai government has learned its lesson and doesn’t want to cut a deal in this case that would free a whole lot more Dadullahs.

But the South Koreans, understandably wanting their hostages returned safely, don’t seem to care if getting them back in a swap means that more Talibanis are freed to resume the war again. It’s an awful situation, but as we all ought to have learned by now, appeasing these animals only makes things worse. Rather than seeing that plain truth, the South Koreans seem to be triangulating between us and the Taliban.

Not surprisingly, Karzai is under intense pressure not to give in again. But the South Korean government is pleading with him and the U.S. to “use flexibility” in dealing with the Taliban’s demands. Seoul and the Korean public clearly favor a deal. But this time Karzai seems to be siding with his allies in the belief that striking such an agreement would only encourage more Taliban abductions, turning kidnapping into a Taliban growth industry. “I think as a principle we shouldn’t encourage kidnapping by accepting their demand,” says the president’s spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada.

“Flexibility” means “let’s make a deal,” and while the strong desire to free these young people is beyond understandable, freeing them in a deal will — you can count on it — jeopardize many more lives in the future. The freed Talibanis will return to the battlefield. There will be more hostages seized, turned into pawns, and murdered if the thugs don’t get what they want.

Honestly, if it’s not the Hyundai corruption case or the South Koreans triangulating against us with North Korea, it’s a situation like this, where Seoul appears to be far more concerned with its own short-term interests than the world’s long term interests. South Korea has already gotten Washington to rule out the use of force, so the terrorists know that there won’t be an Entebbe-style raid on them. That weakens Karzai’s bargaining position, which may increase the danger to the hostages. The long term picture clearly doesn’t favor putting more Taliban fighters out on the streets in exchange for the hostages, both because it frees terrorists from captivity and because it encourages more deployment of this “successful tactic.” But that’s where the “flexibility” that Seoul wants will inevitably lead.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Because no one will judge good or evil.

Lazarus on August 2, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Don’t.deal.with.animals.

PBoilermaker on August 2, 2007 at 4:20 PM

It kind of reminds me of Chamberlain and the Nazis [Islamists of today], if we only give them what they want, all of this will come to an end.

Yes, give them what they want, and it will all come to an end.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 2, 2007 at 4:23 PM

OT,

TNR stands by their man.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a U.S. Army private serving in Iraq. He came to THE NEW REPUBLIC’s attention through Elspeth Reeve, a TNR reporter-researcher, whom he later married. Over the course of the war, we have tried to provide our readers with a sense of Iraq as it is seen by the troops. Usually, these stories have been written by journalists who have traveled to Iraq and interviewed soldiers there, but last January Beauchamp sent us a first-person vignette that seemed a powerful contribution to the genre. It told the story of a young Iraqi boy who befriended American troops and subsequently had his tongue cut out by insurgents. Conservatives and liberals alike praised this essay.

We granted Beauchamp a pseudonym so that he could write honestly and candidly about his emotions and experiences, even as he continued to serve in the armed forces and participate in combat operations. Over the next six months, he published two other short personal accounts in our pages. Beauchamp’s latest, a Diarist headlined “Shock Troops,” was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war. The piece was a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both his own and that of his fellow soldiers.

All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp’s account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

Beauchamp’s essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: “We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right.”

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

In the second anecdote, soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit discovered what they believed were children’s bones. Publicly, the military has sought to refute this claim on the grounds that no such discovery was officially reported. But one military official told TNR that bones were commonly found in the area around Beauchamp’s combat outpost. (This is consistent with the report of a children’s cemetery near Beauchamp’s combat outpost reported on The Weekly Standard website.)

More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp’s account. One wrote in an e-mail: “I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in ‘Shock Troopers.’ [sic] … [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren’t freshly killed and thus the crime hadn’t been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations.” On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: “It fit like a yarmulke,” he said. A forensic anthropologist confirmed to us that it is possible for tufts of hair to be attached to a long-buried fragment of a human skull, as described in the piece.

The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier, who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: “How you do this (I’ve seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline.” TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.

Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.

Either way it’s a lose lose for poor Scott Beauchamp. Either he’s a liar, or he’s a vicious, sadistic scumbag.

Mike Honcho on August 2, 2007 at 4:23 PM

While I despise them for it, I don’t begrudge them their military tactic.

Taking and executing hostages is long established in established military tradition.

As a rule, their military abilities are much less than the west’s, but they’ve hit upon a tactic that works so they run with it.

Disgusting? Yes. Understandable? Hell yes — this is war.

Our morality in war is optimized to the European tradition of large armies sweeping across countries, but in short wars where then everyone has to live with each other after it’s all said and done so some niceties around warfare serve a practical purpose.

We kill people more efficiently than they do… and at less cost to ourselves. That’s why European/American armies have excelled on the battlefield more often than not.

However, this tactic of our enemy is effective because it plays on our natural tendency to want to protect our loved ones and the innocent. It is our own innate goodness the enemy uses against us.

We should respond militarily with what we do best: massive efficient killing.

Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 4:24 PM

*long established in muslem military tradition

Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 4:25 PM

You find something that works, you stick with it. John Candy figured that out and the Taliban is at least as smart.

The Taliban have no moral bottom. They will stop killing when they have finished dying.

TunaTalon on August 2, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Either way it’s a lose lose for poor Scott Beauchamp. Either he’s a liar, or he’s a vicious, sadistic scumbag.

Couldn’t have happened to a better ‘person’.

PBoilermaker on August 2, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Well, we all know how well S. Korea’s “sunshine policy” with Kim Jong-Il has worked out.

CP on August 2, 2007 at 4:29 PM

I say we do the swap and have a few Reapers close by to escort the Taliban back home.

jdog on August 2, 2007 at 4:30 PM

South Korea has already gotten Washington to rule out the use of force, so the terrorists know that there won’t be an Entebbe-style raid on them. That weakens Karzai’s bargaining position, which may increase the danger to the hostages.

Not so fast.

But in Washington, senior State Department official Richard Boucher said the United States is not ruling out military force to free the hostages.

Guardian on August 2, 2007 at 4:34 PM

It’s a pity that Newsweek’s reporters didn’t call in the US military to help trace out the Talibanis’ satellite phone calls.

I was thinking that as I was reading.

I don’t think this is coming out good no matter what happens. It’s like you said they get what they want it’s bad. They don’t get what they want it’s bad.
Two things hit me right off with the article though. First, no escort, why does that happen in a war zone? Second, why does the bus driver just stop?

PowWow on August 2, 2007 at 4:37 PM

I say we pith ‘em and then do the swap.

Just like the hostages they’ll be returned alive and mostly unharmed.

KCSteve on August 2, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Honestly, if it’s not the Hyundai corruption case or the South Koreans triangulating against us with North Korea, it’s a situation like this, where Seoul appears to be far more concerned with its own short-term interests than the world’s long term interests. South Korea has already gotten Washington to rule out the use of force, so the terrorists know that there won’t be an Entebbe-style raid on them.

I don’t want these people to die, but they should be willing. They should have counted the cost before they went over there and determined that they might have to pay with their lives for what they’re doing. Hopefully, most have done that and won’t ask to be released if it means freeing people like Mullah Dadullah’s brother and future deaths. They can’t in good conscience do that and they should be telling their government not to exchange prisoners for their lives.

PRCalDude on August 2, 2007 at 4:46 PM

I wonder when Scotty and Elspeth got married… It must have been fairly recently. http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/01/uber-alles.html http://scottthomas.us/archives/hot-beer-drinking-oktoberfest-girls-want-me/

Interesting his idea about the dates – “January, Oktoberfest in Germany, was a great month in the ladies department” – um, Oktoberfest is in, like September. Fest season doesn’t even get cranked up until late March or April as I remember – the weather sucks too bad to try and run a carnival in January.

jeffshultz on August 2, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Fabrizio Quattrocchi, an Italian security guard taken hostage in Iraq in 2004. Quattrocchi’s jihadi captors, intending to make a video of an infidel’s craven death, ordered him to kneel beside an open grave with a hood on his head. Defiantly, he stood up, tried to rip off the hood, and shouted, “I will show you how an Italian dies!” They murdered him an instant later, but he died bravely, on his feet, refusing with his last breath to be humiliated by savages.

Just wanted to remind some people of how it is best to deal with a terrorist. More men like this would make it easier for us to deal with these animals.

right2bright on August 2, 2007 at 4:49 PM

Why not just track the journalists? I’d have a couple of guys tracking Michael Ware in Iraq. He says he meets with the insurgent leaders all the time. Bait him.

gabriel sutherland on August 2, 2007 at 4:51 PM

I just cannot believe that President Bush is being so passive and spineless about this issue. Does Condi Rice wear the pants in this Administration? I have nothing good to say, either, about the South Korean Administration, which ALSO seems willing to throw these lovely Christians overboard. Fact: We are at WAR (or, so I had THOUGHT) with the Taliban. Fact: The Taliban are cutthroats. Fact: We have troops IN THE AREA! Fact: The South Koreans have Special Forces that we could FLY IN to do the job. Fact: The hostages are going to DIE if we do not act. Fact: Bush/Rice are now sending the message to the world at large that we are SOFT and that we wage war by some ludicrous rules that apparently deem taking out the enemy as out of bounds. Mr. President: Please ask yourself: What would Teddy Roosevelt do? PLEASE ACT NOW!

sanantonian on August 2, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Just think what would have happened to a reporter if they would have interviewed Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo and did not try to kill ‘em themselves or at least have helped track them down.

- The Cat

P.S. Being non-biased in war =/= patriatism.

MirCat on August 2, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Crush them …and try not to kill any hostages in the seige.

But crush them.

profitsbeard on August 2, 2007 at 5:56 PM

It kind of reminds me of Chamberlain and the Nazis [Islamists of today], if we only give them what they want, all of this will come to an end.

Yes, give them what they want, and it will all come to an end.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 2, 2007 at 4:23 PM

In defense of Chamberlain, he thought he was dealing with a traditional European power that was honorable.

From his speech to declare war:

“You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more, or anything different, that I could have done, and that would have been more successful… We have a clear conscience, we have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany’s ruler could be trusted, and no people or country could feel themselves safe, had become intolerable… Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution. And against them I am certain that the right will prevail.”

So presently the South Koreans are worse, because unlike Chamberlain, who didn’t know who he was dealing with (He thought he was all talk as a way to rebuild Germany after that crappy treaty at Versailles. The South Koreans know exactly who they are dealing with.

Tim Burton on August 2, 2007 at 6:26 PM

In defense of Chamberlain, he thought he was dealing with a traditional European power that was honorable.

Well that’s the first time I have ever read that sentence.

hulbstar on August 2, 2007 at 6:46 PM

In defense of Chamberlain, he thought he was dealing with a traditional European power that was honorable.

Yes, and whose fault was that? Hitler stated everything in Mein Kampf(sp?). All Chamberlain had to do was take Hitler at face value. History is strewn with countless bodies of people who paid for the “peace at any price” crowd’s desire to wish away evil. Those who ignore the Quran are cut from the same cloth as Chamberlain and the results will be similar. Muslims view victory as the death or total subjugation of ANYONE who does not accept their “religion”. You don’t negotiate with these people.

oldleprechaun on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I guess it’s too much to ask of Newsweek to tell our military where the Taliban is holding those 21 South Korean hostages so that they can be rescued before they are all shot in the head.

SoulGlo on August 2, 2007 at 7:53 PM

The Afgans should shoot 2(or more) prisoners for every hostage killed. Then there would be no one to trade for in the future.

xplodeit on August 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM

The Afgans should shoot 2(or more) prisoners for every hostage killed. Then there would be no one to trade for in the future.

xplodeit on August 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM

The South Koreans (and any other nation who is held hostage like this…) should send a thousand fully armed and pissed of marines for each hostage killed.

Then this hostage taking would come to a pretty swift end.

CrazyFool on August 2, 2007 at 11:20 PM

When I read the Burnham’s book (missionaries captured by Abu Sayaff) I wondered the entire time why they didn’t try to either a) escape or b) fight back.

Chinese home churches are teaching their leaders how to break out of handcuffs and jump safely from second story windows. Missions agencies need to start teaching their candidates some new life skills and have a game plan in place.

Finally, I think we ought not to only have a policy of non-negotiation, we ought to have a policy of playing smash mouth football. Saving hostages makes for great movies; in real life it makes for more dead good guys. Wiping out all the bad guys as priority one makes for fewer problems down the road.

TexasDan on August 3, 2007 at 1:08 AM

TexasDan on August 3, 2007 at 1:08 AM

TD,

A hearty ‘Amen’ to that post. Self defense is a requirement of the sixth commandment. They should try to overcome their attackers. They should have also left the women at home, and not traveled for the purpose of socialism, like they did.

PRCalDude on August 3, 2007 at 12:17 PM

How’s this for a deal? One-way tickets to South Korea for all the kidnappers and their weapons? As long as the violence perpetrated by this scum isn’t affecting Seoul, they don’t care.

In defense of Chamberlain, he thought he was dealing with a traditional European power that was honorable.

Kind of reminds me of Nancy Pelosi’s thinking about Bashar Assad.

clghitis on August 3, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Kind of reminds me of Nancy Pelosi’s thinking about Bashar Assad.

clghitis on August 3, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Or Bush’s dealing with the Democratic Leadership for that matter….

CrazyFool on August 3, 2007 at 12:52 PM