There’s little doubt that Iraq is one of the most dangerous places on this planet. Daily murders, car bombings, and attacks make it in my opinion the most hostile and deadly locale. I’m just some guy who lives in Calgary. The place is halfway around the world. It’s in the news every day. But you already knew that. I think everyone knows that.
Why someone would volunteer to embark on such a journey for employment, religious pilgrimage, or heck, even to visit family I’ll never understand. Drawn in no doubt by lucrative money, a chance to get a fresh start on life when you get back… if you get back.
So, lets pretend that Bob is about to volunteer to head out to Iraq for six-weeks, making 10x’s his normal salary working in the oil industry. In his fourth week there, he is captured by insurgents, and promptly showcased on Arabic and other international media outlets pleading for his release, even asking for a swap.
Should governments be responsible for mediating a release with a one prisoner for another deal? Even if the insurgents want someone responsible for the murder of countless innocent people released?
The recent video of a Briton named Peter Moore, captured eight months ago with 4 others brings up this discussion. He’s basically said on the video that his release is simple. Just hand over the people they want, and they’ll let him go. Simple. But is it that simple? While I don’t know if he was forced to go, actually, I don’t think you can force someone into a war zone unless you are in the military (not 100% sure, but you couldn’t force me to go) I can’t see how this can work. I turn to Italy for these discussions,
who are reported to have released 5 Taliban prisoners for the release of a hostage, a journalist.
While I want nothing more than a release of these hostages, I can’t help but ask why the hell they were in the first place? But that’s their personal decision. They knew the risks.
I have more sympathy towards soldiers, but at the same time, if you enlisted in the all volunteer army of the United States after the invasion of Afghanistan, you knew you could potentially end up in a war zone.
It’s the same with these contract security forces. They make a boat load of money, but run the same risks.
The list goes on and on.
I’m not saying abandon them. But I think governments pay a hefty fee to get the release of some of these hostages, money which is obviously funding the terrorism network of which the hostage takers align themselves with. The Italian government is what I think of.... again. While they’re not publicly disclosing,
they’ve been accused of paying for hostages in Iraq. A claim the Italian government "balks" at.
Basically, should these hostages, who knew the risk before they left voluntarily, have their governments essentially fund terrorism or release a key prisoner who could kill more innocent people? Is there other options? I understand you can’t just let them rot, or wait for them to be brutally murdered…
But if I go into a bank knowing that is being robbed, and I and subsequently get held hostage, should the government pay off the gunman so he can go get more guns to hold hostage more people? Or have his buddies released from jail so they can all band together to do more crime?
I’m sure you get the point by now, and just want to see how others see it.
Iraq: Should hostages be released in a hostage for prisoner(s) swap?
