The larger implication of not negotiating
by digby
One of the Americans who was held hostage in Iran for a couple of years speaks out about the policy of not paying ransom to terrorists. I think most of us probably think that theory of never negotiating with such extremists makes sense in the abstract but when you apply it to individuals it gets a little bit tougher. (At least it does for me.) Other countries do negotiate and so does the US at least some of the time although we pretend that’s not what we’re doing. It’s not an easy call.
I think she makes a very good point with this, however:
In addition to the lives at stake, it’s crucial to look at the ripple effects that the Islamic State’s sadistic propaganda can and will continue to have. The collective trauma created by these barbarous acts is impossible to imagine, both in the U.S. and in the Middle East. What future repressive policies will these killings be used to justify? How much are these videos, and the heinous acts they portray, escalating the likelihood of all-out regional war? If nothing else, perhaps a prisoner swap or third-party ransom paid to the Islamic State is worth it in the overall equation simply to prevent ISIS from having any more material.
It’s possible that over time people will become inured to this barbaric style of execution and it will lose its propaganda value in the west. (It’s not as if we don’t have a capacity for violence.) But I have to believe that the “ninja” warrior image of those hideous videos will continue to serve as a compelling recruiting tool for the juvenile, stunted males who are drawn to that sort of thing. It’s hard to see the upside to that.
I generally default to the idea that if we can save someone’s life we should but I also understand the broader implications of “negotiating with terrorists”. I think it’s possible that the larger threat comes from giving them the propaganda victory than giving them the money.
.