Hostage-taking: the new face of war?

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

Douglas Murray’s article – "What Al-Zarqawi knows" (http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-119-2132.jsp) raises interesting issues about the psychology of hostage taking, but remains basically an asymmetrical account of what has gone wrong. Although it is always commendable to condemn the (obvious) cruelty of Al Zarqawi et al the problem lies with his thesis statement: “The West cares about every single life”. Sadly, this has usually meant Western or Israeli lives and it would be difficult to convince the Arab World otherwise. One of the most cynical examples is the imposition of twelve years of the cruelest sanctions on Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of half a million children. Madeleine Allbright is reportedly said to have retorted “Yes, it was worth it”, when queried about the purpose of such measures which simply served to make the Iraqis even more dependent on Saddam and centralized government policies.

In the past our political and cultural elites traditionally confronted terrorism and hostage-taking by not allowing it to succeed in preventing us from going about our daily business. Not anymore, this attitude is much less in evidence today, in regards to recent responses to attacks and kidnappings. Indeed, there is tendency to promote our vulnerbility. The idea that the advanced Western societies are under constant threat encourages a climate of fear, which in turn encourages more attacks and kidnappings. Confusion and a culture of fear are the main rewards for the terrorists. How can it be, that images of Kenneth Bigley in a cage somewhere in Iraq, can bring such distress to a nation of 60 million strong Britons? Or how can killing over 3000 people paralyse a state of over 300 million Americans? These are the most advanced societies, with successful economies, trapped in a culture of fear and an acute aversion to taking any risks.

RE: What al-Zarqawi knows - by Douglas Murray Axiom one: action begets re-action. As persuasive as Douglas Murray’s assertions may be, it galls me to step back from his tight focus to the inescapable fact that this war was trumped up from the very beginning. That a US government over-estimated its abilities, over-stepped its own moral rights, and under-estimated the task. Given the spin before the US incursion even the man in the street could see a folly in progress. Well perhaps not the American man in the street but certainly most of the rest of the world. The hostage situation is a vile reaction to a vile invasion, and the consequent chaos a tribute to gross ineptitude. Or was it ineptitude?

I have read Mary Kaldor's article, dealing with the relationship between hostage taking, new and old wars, and the possible strategies to deal with hostage taking, with interest. Although I would tend to endorse her contextualization of hostage taking within the framework of new wars, (wars where the distinction between legitimate war and organized crime becomes increasingly difficult to make), nevertheless I feel that her so called "third strategy" consisting of applied law enforcement in places where the hostage takers are likely to draw their suppport - is at best misguided and at worst, dangerous.

The place they call home is the mess we created. Whatever Italy might have done to get the Italian aid workers out of there is also what England should try to do.