“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.
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
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
Not so fast.
Guardian on August 2, 2007 at 4:34 PM
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
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
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
In defense of Chamberlain, he thought he was dealing with a traditional European power that was honorable.
From his speech to declare war:
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
Well that’s the first time I have ever read that sentence.
hulbstar on August 2, 2007 at 6:46 PM
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 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
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.
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