As several horrific kidnapping and hostage situations involving American journalists and tourists played out in public view, families interviewed after the heinous murders of their loved ones were frequently frustrated by mixed messages from the government about efforts to rescue their family members.
Many, like James Foley’s parents, had been contacted by the terrorists, who demanded a ransom. The U.S. government’s response discouraged any negotiations with the terrorists.
Yet the convoluted messages sent in each of these episodes can’t be ignored. Yes, America, like other nations, does, sadly, negotiate with terrorists, negotiations that are nothing more than a game of semantics and political theater.
The government-approved exchange of Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay for Beau Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban after he abandoned his assignment in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, was a head scratcher. Why?
Bergdahl’s “capture” was reported initially as an act committed by an enemy of the United States during a war. In cases such as these, prisoner swaps have been used appropriately to ensure the safe return of our military men and women who have been captured.
The Bergdahl fiasco might fit into this narrative if you only apply the criteria that this young man was “fighting” for his country while captured, and his safety was guaranteed only with an exchange for Taliban prisoners at Gitmo.
However, it became clear Bergdahl was captured after he walked away from his military post and subsequently placed his fellow military brethren in danger with their search for him. Therefore, the negotiations between the Taliban and the Obama administration were used for another purpose or two.
Bergdahl’s conduct resulted in charges leveled by the U.S. Army under the Uniform Code of Military Justice of “one count of desertion with intention to shirk important and hazardous duty and one count of misbehavior before the enemy endangering the safety of a command, unit or place.”
His conduct was only a surprise to some as Bergdahl’s military colleagues told the truth of his desertion from the beginning. Even then-CIA director Leon Panetta questioned the swap of one deserter for five senior Taliban figures being held for war crimes.
But the Obama White House pressed on with a Rose Garden announcement of the prisoner swap, with the president sandwiched between the parents of the military “hostage.” Obama framed the swap as an exchange of an innocent military man returned after being captured in an act of enemy aggression.
However, the negotiation was to meet a political goal of Barack Obama: To negotiate and have talks with all nations, even America’s enemies.
In the June 2014 issue of Foreign Policy, it was reported, “The swap was initially developed in 2011 as a confidence-building measure aimed at encouraging broader talks with the Taliban.” Further, the publication noted that “Bergdahl’s release at least demonstrates that small-scale negotiations are feasible.”
Maybe it’s more accurate to state the U.S. refuses to pay ransom to terrorists since it is well known the Taliban is a terrorist organization and that, despite Obama’s best refusals, the reality is that our world is at war with terrorists, whether they be ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda or al-Shabaab.
And the latest news? The U.S. will likely have an unwritten agreement with Iran, a state sponsor of terror, about its nuclear development.
We can only shake our heads.
Robin Smith, a past chairwoman of the Tennessee Republican Party, is owner of Rivers Edge Alliance.