US National interests applied to hostages

1. Bottom line: exchanging hostages taken expressly for that purpose is a proven successful tactic by tribes and some nation-states. In modern history (relatively) this goes back to the Barbary Pirates.
2. Second bottom line: it is an ugly world out there.
3. Third bottom line: What do we do when our National interests are not threatened, but we are outraged and morally appalled. This circumstance applies to hostages, and genocide.
4. Fourth bottom line: How dirty are we (in the west) willing to get in playing the game?

The preceding questions are prompted by the present British hostage abduction by the Iranians. This is a repeat performance between tribes and nations (in the traditional guise of ideologies mixed with some hardball retribution) it seems. Recently a BBC fellow was taken in Gaza, and also recently 5 Italians were taken in Afghanistan. It has gone on before, and may well continue, since it has worked in the past in achieving the results of the abductors. Now 15 Brits are abducted by the Iranians.

Much as men and women court, something similar has been going on in the middle east for decades. Most of it is business, oil and military weapons come to mind; but it has also been cold war competition for benefits to the region (as in the big Nile River dam); and also it has been supporting the many arab dictatorships in support of our national objectives when it coincides with their objectives. Many call this “realism”. Whatever it was, there were the “courters”, and the “courtees”, and both did the dance. When one thinks they are “pursued”, they often imbue themselves with extra advantages. It seems like those practicing abduction as a tactic still think this way. Maybe it is older than that.

The hard nut to crack is one of National interest, and our moral outrage at hostage abduction and genocide. The courses of action are all over the place, but this one citizen has made his peace. It is one being selfish, and unless my idea of our National interest is threatened, I expect my federal public servants to do the best they can with what they’ve got. That’s it! President Jefferson reached this point with the Barbary Pirates when our payments to them in tribute became intolerable, and he and the Congress did the best they could with what they got. I expect our present President and Congress to do something similar in the present circumstances. I have no idea what they may come up with, and I think they share the same frustration. And the poor anti-war types may have other “problems”. Even Jimmy Carter is weighing in, I hear.

Just how “dirty” are we willing to get. Let me not mince words. Are we willing to let hostages die for a greater cause? Are we willing to use covert operations to kill or kidnap enemies? Are we willing to use bribes to influence our enemies? Are we willing to deal with the most disreputable and despicable individuals if it benefits our National interest? Again, this citizen has made his peace. The answer is yes. I am willing to get “dirty”, as long as some public servants have oversight review limited to our American values not being abused. If this sounds political, it is. The old days of Senator Church’s and Admiral Turner’s wave of wand, and law’s that limited our getting “dirty” may have been well intentioned, but the bottom line result has been to force our present public servants into decisions that look more like: “go to war” or “back off”. This citizen thinks our public servants need more “tricks” in their “bag of tricks” if we, as a Nation, are to avoid war, and pursue our National interests by other means.