About four months ago, American Warren Weinstein was kidnapped by gunmen. He was living in Pakistan directing an American firm that advises Pakistani business.
Now, al-Qaeda says it is still holding him hostage. Leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says, "Just as the Americans detain whomever they suspect may be connected to al-Qaeda or the Taliban even in the slightest of ways, we have detained this man who has been involved with US aid to Pakistan since the 1970s." He also stated that Weinstein will be freed if the US follows several demands:
1. US stops air strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.
2. release al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects worldwide
Should our government intervene and try and free the hostage? Or comply with Zawahiri's requests? Thoughts?
14 comments:
I believe that the only choice that the U.S. has is to attempt to free Weinstein by force or some form of parley but definitely not by compliance with Zawahiri's requests. If the U.S. complies with the requests of any terrorist group, it will only encourage other terrorist groups to capture other (semi) important people and make even more outrageous demands. Although such actions may appear to not be in Weinstein's best interests, this is a somewhat unfortunate case of the greater good.
This is obviously going to be a hard decision but I am almost certain that the US will not give into al-Qaeda's demands. This is much different than the Americans that were imprisoned in Iran because al-Qaeda is not a country and therefore I don't think the US government will negotiate with them. Although this sounds bad, I do not think that the US government will really do anything to free Warren Weinstein. Yes, they may comment on it, but I don't feel that any real action will come from it because we won't really be gaining anything besides giving into al-Qaeda's demands. This could show that America is weak and could also set a precedent for future hostage situations which is something that the US government does not want.
I'm certainly not surprised by the news of Al-Qaeda holding a man hostage and then asserting demands on the US government - it seems almost practical on their part to wave this capture in our faces to let us know that they are still in "the game." However, Mr. Warren Weinstein is not President Barack Obama and will not be treated as such - as cruel as it sounds, the well-being of this man is not a top priority of the US government. It would not be expected and, in my opinion, certainly not practical to concede to the list of demands detailed by Al-Qaeda, as it will lead to two inevitable consequences: 1.) the US will certainly be seen in a much weaker light and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups will interpret the decision as US' helplessness in the face of certain dilemmas, 2.) it would completely disarrange the US defense strategies and confidentiality measures if the US were to release Al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects worldwide. As many would say, "We do not negotiate with terrorists." That being said, I think the only choice the US government has is to keep silent for now and "stone" Al-Qaeda into the next step. Although I certainly feel for the poor man, I don't think there's anything that can be done at this point (if Al-Qaeda really has him) that can free him easily from the hands of Al-Qaeda.
I agree with Dustin and Kore that this is tough decision if they give into Al Qaeda, it gives them leverage to hold others capative and have power over the United States Government with their demands. If they do not give into their demands though, Weinstein is in danger of being killed. I think this is really a dilemna. Can the United States really change their whole policy on terrorism for one man and risk more? I think that the United States should not give into Al Qaeda's demands but try another way to get Weinstein free.
I think that Dustin malde a really good point about the fact that al-Qaeda is not a country, which reduces the likelihood that the US will be willing to give in to its demands.
I first heard about this story while watching the Today Show this morning. My first reaction was one of sorrow at the fate of this poor man. But once I heard the demands from al-Qaeda, I believed there would not be a good chance that the US would meet the demands. Releasing all al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects across the world would be one of the most dangerous moves the US could make.
The US government must be careful of how they proceed. Obviously, it does want to save this man, but at the same time, the risks of future terrorist attacks would increase were prisoners across the world released and allowed to go back to al-Qaeda.
I enjoyed every page on your blog, I think you are is creative, if you have a spare time look at me too at diabetic supplies medicare I am happy to share with you and hope to become your friends
Whoa. I think some of the things Al-Qaeda stated about the U.S. were exaggerated but kind of true in that the U.S. is rather paranoid in their questioning of Muslim and people of Mid-Eastern descent which has definitely led to many stereotypes of the ethnicity. I don't think that U.S. should comply agreeing with the comments above stating that it would only give them more power and show us as weak. but I do agree that we DO need to something to help free this man.
I know I'll probably get a lot of flame for saying this, but I do not think that the U.S. should comply with al-Qaeda's requests. If we truly think about JUST the numbers, it is significantly safer to let that one American stay imprisoned than to do all of al-Qaeda's requests. I understand wanting to stop the air strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, but releasing EVERY suspect of al-Qaeda and the Taliban seems to be very risky. There was a reason these people were suspected of being apart of these organizations. By releasing them, we could have a LOT more terrorist acts committed. If something big happens again (like 9/11) is it really worth it? This is just a bit of my perspective, I don't mean to offend anyone.
The United States is pulling a double standard by keeping al-Qaeda suspects. Finally, they have been challenged with a prisoner from the other side. Obviously, I agree that we should try to free the hostage, but to comply with all of al-Zawahiri's demands is not possible. If the US were to release all of the al-Qaeda prisoners we have for one man, future nation's would follow what al-Zawahiri is suggesting. I agree with Jennifer in that stopping air strikes the US could comply with, but to release suspected al-Qaeda terroritsts for the hopes of releasing one man isn't a very good idea. For fear of future nation's asking the same request of the US in the future.
In all honesty, I don't think the US would even consider complying to Al-Qaeda. It has a choice between saving one man or saving the entire country. Isn't it obvious that the US would do whatever it takes to save this country? I know this may sound harsh but really. After this long feud with Al-Qaeda, there's no way the US would follow the demands to appease Al-Qaeda. In fact, I would think the US would do the complete opposite. This blackmail would trigger the US to get back at Al-Qaeda and this ongoing fight would continue. It's a shame that Weinstein was kidnapped and I think he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
This article reminds me of Gilad Shalit who was an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas in 2006. He wasn't released until October 2011 in exchange for Israel releasing 1,027 convicted Palestinian prisoners.
According to Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, those prisoners included terrorists and were collectively responsible for 569 Israeli deaths. However, the Israeli government believed that it was worth it to negotiate with a terrorist organization in order to free one of their soldiers.
I don’t believe that Israel giving into Hamas’ demands made the country seem weak. To me, it made Israel seem stronger because of how devoted the government is to its soldiers/citizens. It made the country seem more united.
I know that Shalit's situation is different from Weinstein's. Weinstein is not a soldier and Al-Qaeda's demands are more extreme. But I think that is worth it for the U.S. to at least try to negotiate something with Al-Qaeda. It took five years before Hamas and Israel finally made an agreement. For Weinstein, I'm hoping that with time the U.S. and Al-Qaeda can agree on something too.
This is quite a predicament. Personally, I feel that it isn't worth giving into the demands of al-Qaeda, especially when they make such huge demands. One person's life isn't worth saving millions of others. I don't think the U.S. would given into to their demands. For one thing it would make the U.S. look weak, which is really bad. Secondly, the demands are way too drastic. To release all our prisoners and stop all attacks is a lot for one citizen. If the group were asking for more reasonable things(like maybe the release of only one prisoner) then maybe compromises could be made.
I agree with Kore, the US should us force to get Weinstein back because if they give in and reason with the terrorist group ( Like what kore said) all the other terrorist group will us the same tactics and capture other people important to the US.
I'm not sure if the whole "double-standard" argument works for this specific case. We are not holding al-Qaeda operatives "hostage" as much as we are holding them as prisoners of war.
One of the good conversations in this thread is the idea of a non-governmental actor in international affairs. Since al-Qaeda is not a governmental action, it is much more difficult for the international community to effect the organization. If the organization holding a U.S. citizen hostage was a country such as Iran or Iraq, the international community could reply by the imposition of sanctions. Since al-Qaeda is not a governmental body, the U.S. must deal with the body more cautiously and directly.
I personally believe that the U.S. will either have to engage in military actions (which, it is already doing) against al-Qaeda or just accept the hostage of Weinstein. Engaging in diplomatic action seems very difficult with a group such as al-Qaeda.
Although a diplomatic solution such as the Galid Shalit deal (as Meredith mentioned), would be a great leap of conciliatory success, the circumstances of Israel-Palestine and the U.S.-al-Qaeda relationships are very different. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is characterized by Israel's continual desire for regional stability and Palestine's desire for self-determination. The U.S.'s tirade on al-Qaeda is a response to the 9/11 attacks and an offensive against terrorism in the Middle East. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has no land claims and rather seeks for the outright destruction of the U.S.. While some more extreme Hamas branches do call for the eradication of Israel it actually has reasons to follow a diplomatic path. Al-Qaeda has few reasons, if any, to seek a diplomatic resolution (other than the conditions it has set already).
Post a Comment