Did US policy on kidnappings create the pretense for war?

[nashville_brook]

The day after Obama's prime time statement on going (not going) to war in the Middle East, here's what I said on Facebook...

"I'm absolutely torn about this. (it) puts us on the side of Syria's leaders which a year ago we were wanting to bomb. seems to me there's no good partners in the region and we risk making a bad situation worse. on the other hand I want revenge for the beheadings of the journos…"

But two new pieces of information have me reconsidering this morning after "what the hell let's go to war" feeling. One is that we now know that Foley's family was threatened by US military representatives not to pay ransom.

And the other is that European journalists have been rescued by ransom in amounts ranging from 1-5 million. Spain and Germany paid to avoid television beheadings of THEIR people, but we'll gladly embark on an open-ended military campaign costing trillions on the pretense that if we don't they'll behead more Americans. Why is that?

Something we've known for a long time is that we allow corporations to spring American executives kidnapped in the Middle East as well as Africa and Central and South America. It's done secretly and there's even insurance for it called K & R -- K & R is actually a thing, and not just on DU. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_and_ransom_insurance

Young freelancers aren't likely to be paid fairly, much less have K & R policies.

But this isn't the only problem facing families of kidnapped American journalists. The US and Britain are out of step with European countries who do rescue their journalists. According to this article by Steve Coll in the New Yorker, negotiating consultants believe it's imperative to move ideological kidnappings to being economically motivated b/c that's how you take the political gain off the table for the kidnappers.

It makes me wonder, was our policy on kidnappings to blame for creating the pretense for war?

I'll leave you with David Rohde, an investigative reporter for Reuters and contributing editor for The Atlantic who back in 2008 was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and held for more than seven months before escaping.

In a piece that ran on August 20 on Reuters, Rohde asks:

Did America’s policy on ransom contribute to James Foley’s killing?

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2014/08/20/did-american-policy-help-kill-james-foley/

...Foley’s execution is also a chilling wake-up call for American and European policymakers, as well as U.S. news outlets and aid organizations. It is the clearest evidence yet of how vastly different responses to kidnappings by U.S. and European governments save European hostages but can doom the Americans. Hostages and their families realize this fully — even if the public does not.

“I wish I could have the hope of freedom and seeing my family once again, but that ship has sailed,” Foley said moments before he was killed in a craven video released by the militant group on Tuesday. “I guess, all in all, I wish I wasn’t American.” Foley clearly spoke under duress. But his regret at being an American captive, real or not, reflected grim fact.

This spring, four French and two Spanish journalists held hostage by the Islamic State extremists were freed — after the French and Spanish governments paid ransoms through intermediaries. The U.S. government refused to negotiate or pay a ransom in Foley’s case or for any other American captives — including my own abduction by the Taliban five years ago.

(snip)

Foley believed that his government would help him, according to his family. In a message that was not made public, Foley said that he believed so strongly that Washington would help that he refused to allow his fellow American captives to not believe in their government.

A consistent response to kidnapping by the U.S. and Europe is desperately needed. The current haphazard approach is failing.

James Foley must not die in vain.

[CJCRANE]

1. I also think that waging war based on the fate of two journalists

is not fair on us or them (or their families).

[TwilightGardener]

4. We're not, though. When ISIS overran Mosul and threatened Baghdad, we moved an

aircraft carrier and put special forces in place--in June. We plotted airstrikes but held off for almost two months, until the Yazidi genocide and threats to our interests and personnel in Kurdistan. The war was actually begun in June, the beheadings just brought the public on board.

[nashville_brook]

6. yes, it's so easy to get swept up in the desire for vengeance -- it's almost too easy

and i'm a hard sell on that. i try to have a rational sense of what the pieces are on the chess board. still, they were young journalists. i was a young journalist once and i wanted nothing more than to be doing what they did.

and you know what, if it were me down there i'd feel exactly the same way Foley did. i'd expect the US to come and save me up until the bitter end when i'd have to say, like he did, “I guess, all in all, I wish I wasn’t American.”

But I sure as shit wouldn't want my murder to result in the mass murder of more people in the middle east, or the expenditure of American treasure *after the fact.* the time for military assault, for ME, would be to rescue me. after that, it's all on you.

[geek tragedy]

11. The US did try to rescue him--they sent a special ops team

to do so.

[TwilightGardener]

18. One of the special forces took a bullet, in fact, trying to save Foley and Sotloff.

[nashville_brook]

42. and when that didn't work, they could have deescalated by letting the family negotiate

like the Europeans do - that would have moved the kidnapping from an ideological (reason for war) to an economic motivation.

[geek tragedy]

46. Do you understand what ISIL does with that money?

This:

https://news.vice.com/article/isis-reportedly-executed-children-as-young-as-one-in-syria

Sorry, I do not think we should help ISIL commit crimes against humanity. You obviously disagree.

[nashville_brook]

63. our closest ME "partners" have funded ISIS: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

this is part of the reason why we had a difficult time creating a strategy. also, as ISIS takes over cities in Iraq, they're acquiring billions of dollars of American military equipment. so, i doubt a measly $1 million to free an American kid would do much to tip the scales in their favor. but it would have robbed them of a cornerstone propaganda piece.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

[geek tragedy]

64. The funds have dried up, ergo the kidnapping.

They got no propaganda victory.

$1 million would help kill hundreds.

[nashville_brook]

90. they got a war which provides them with everything they want.

[Historic NY]

104. Why because of the ineptness of the Iraq leaders...

personally they rather get rid of the competition. There isn't enough killing yets to get others involved. The correspondents are just a distraction. They put themselves in the area and they paid the price. Degrading ISIS enough is the only way the Iragis will get the courage to take them on. Looking back things weren't so bad under Saddam is what many think.

[woo me with science]

44. Remember that big speech in June about military restraint?

The "Hammer-Nail" speech?

It's always just a speech.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Honestly, I think it depends on what group of kidnappers you're dealing with.

If it's a designated terrorist group or a group we're at war with (AQ, Taliban), US policy is pretty clear-cut. If it's something else (Somali pirates, smaller organized-crime outfits, maybe) I think we turn more of a blind eye.

[nashville_brook]

7. one could say that's b/c there's not a policy advantage in those.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Well sure, I consider myself a cynic and a realist, and it's not hard to see that

we don't have very many hard and fast rules. Although I don't believe these beheadings and our policies RE hostages are THE basis for war. I don't remember any of this coming up at the time of the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg beheadings, BTW, and I wonder why that is. Did anyone try to ransom or rescue them?

[nashville_brook]

22. precisely, and their beheadings worked to reinforce the military response.

[TwilightGardener]

26. But I don't think anyone intended that. I think the administration and the Pentagon

tried to rescue them in early July because they knew that once airstrikes began, it was all over for these guys. We held off as long as possible, but the Yazidi and Kurd situation forced their hand.

[nashville_brook]

31. senior security officials threatened the Foley family to not rescue him by ransom...

…saying that they had other plans. when the special forces rescue didn't pan out the least they could have done was lift the intimation tactics on the family.

[TwilightGardener]

34. I will guarantee that the Foley family doesn't fully know the whole picture

of what was being done on their son's behalf--much of it is probably classified. However much they liked or disliked what administration officials told them, it doesn't have much bearing on what happened. You also need to ask yourself why the Bush administration, who underwent similar hostage beheadings, didn't get this political backlash?

[nashville_brook]

93. they certainly know who threatened them if they tried to rescue their son

and you better believe the military used their intelligence to get the family what they wanted them to do. and now their son is dead, and was desecrated on video for the world to see.

that's a huge victory for the insurgents. they provoked the our military into war at a time when we DON'T HAVE a diplomatic move b/c we're supposedly allies with the people arming the insurgency. we have a Coalition of the Killing.

[TwilightGardener]

95. Sorry, but I don't believe they were "threatened" except in their own perception.

They were most likely being dissuaded, and that would be for a host of reasons we can't know. The government cannot defend itself from what the Foleys and Sotloffs are saying, and let's be honest--they'll never be satisfied because their kids are dead, and still, it's not the government's fault. And you keep missing my point--when did we move airpower into the region? When did we try to rescue the hostages? When did the airstrikes begin? When did these guys get beheaded, and why? Look at the timeline before you throw accusations of us going to war because of beheadings. You are not relying on fact.

[geek tragedy]

3. And so it begins, blaming Obama for their deaths.

And, no, the reason we're getting involved militarily is because we can't let Iraq and Syria turn into Afghanistan. Not two murders.

It's the two murders that are getting the press.

What is not being said, of course, is that if a country pays ransom, it encourages people to kidnap their citizens.

[Sopkoviak]

8. So maybe we should have traded a few more Gitmo detainees in exchange

We seem to be ok with that.

[geek tragedy]

9. Thanks for the RNC's Bergdahl talking points, nt

[Sopkoviak]

13. No problem geek

*knee jerk*

[TwilightGardener]

15. Bergdahl is a US soldier. Prisoner exchange was doable.

The folks in Gitmo are not ISIS, and the victims are civilians. Not really a "prisoner of war" scenario.

[Sopkoviak]

20. And how does that not encourage capturing more US Soldiers

and holding them for ransom?

[TwilightGardener]

25. They didn't, to my knowledge, get a ransom. They waited FIVE YEARS to get

back Gitmo prisoners because we're leaving Afgh. Yes, for all the outcry over Foley and Sotloff, they were held for at most two years (and both men put themselves in their situations voluntarily). The Bergdahl family waited FIVE YEARS.

[Sopkoviak]

29. To me it's a distinction without a difference

nt

[TwilightGardener]

37. Not to the US government, it's not. Military get treated differently than civilians, and that

is exactly as it should be.

[nashville_brook]

60. victim blaming much? Sotloff and Foley "put themselves in their situations voluntarily"

you really want to go there?

[TwilightGardener]

61. That's an undisputed fact. There were strict travel warnings in place.

They went there BECAUSE of the dangerous and unstable situation, so they were certainly aware (and Foley had been captured before in Libya), but they were not sent by the US government.

[geek tragedy]

38. Um, that's what the Taliban are trying to do, when they're not trying to kill them.

Enemies on the battlefield don't respond to that kind of incentive.

[nashville_brook]

19. actually that's treated and refuted in the Steve Coll article

there's two kinds of kidnappings: economically motivated and ideologically motivated. IF the goal is to deescalate the situation you actually want to move an ideological kidnapping to one that can be solved economically in order to take the political gain off the table.

otherwise you hand the militaries (both militaries) big excuses to escalate the situation.

[geek tragedy]

23. Paying ransoms encourages further hostage tasking

Moreover, economically supporting ISIL means being an accessory to crimes against humanity.

[TwilightGardener]

30. With a group like ISIS or AQ, it's pretty fucking hard to see how they're

going to NOT be ideological, whether we pay ransoms or not. They're religious nutbags, convert or die.

[DirkGently]

5. Exactly. We have "principles" against ransom, but not war.

Except of course that we traded prisoners with the Taliban, a U.S. - designated "terrorist organization," a few months ago (I supported getting Berghdahl back, whatever the circumstances).

So the real situation is that we negotiate when we want to, and pretend to have principles about it when we don't want to, leading to the question:

Why didn't we want to this time? It's not likely we couldn't guess what ISIS would do -- Al Quaeda kicked them out for being too rough around the edges.

So we got two horrific, blood-boiling beheadings instead of spending (from the article) a few million to avoid it.

How much blood will be shed, and how many dollars spent now?

[geek tragedy]

10. If you start ransoming hostages, you make every American traveling abroad

a target for kidnappers.

Indeed, by paying ransom for kidnappings, one would ENCOURAGE such kidnappings,

[DirkGently]

17. They are already targets and we already pay.

Here is AIG's "Kidnap, Ransom and Extortion" policy page:
http://www.aig.com/Kidnap-Ransom-and-Extortion-KRE-Liability_3171_417761.html

Claims Scenarios
A company sends an employee to visit Brazil and explore a new business opportunity. On the third-day of the visit, the employee is kidnapped and the company is notified that the employee is being held for a ransom of $1 million. The company immediately calls the AIG 24/7 emergency hotline and two NYA International consultants are sent to work hand-in-hand with the company’s crisis management team. After five days of negotiations, the employees are released for a ransom of $500,000. The company submits its proof of loss to AIG and is reimbursed the ransom amount in full.

We pay all the time. Other countries pay all the time. And we just got done doing a high-profile prisoner swap with the Taliban, which is on our list of designated terrorist organizations.

What happened here is we decided no one could pay THIS TIME.

There is no rational distinction between these journalists and other negotiations we have made, or from the Taliban swap.

Moreover, it's our presence and military interdictions in the Middle East that make Americans targets there, not the promise of a few dollars. Pay or don't pay; swap or don't swap, our foreign policy makes Americans targets.

The question, then, is on what basis are we choosing who we "negotiate" with?

[TwilightGardener]

21. Again, Bergdahl is a soldier and was a POW.

We were at war in Afgh., we held their guys, they held our guy. Why do you not see this? Civilians are treated differently. And should be.

[DirkGently]

36. So Gitmo prisoners are now POWs too?

You can't have a "POW exchange" involving people you claim are not POWs, but rather "enemy combatants" that have no status under the normal rules governmening POWs.

The Taliban is not a state actor. We routinely claim, when it suits us, that the rules of "war" do not apply to "terrorist organizations." No Geneva convention, no right to trial for prisoners, etc. At least that's why we claim Gitmo prisoners are simply criminals awaiting a trial that never need occur.

What the administration did in that case was to craft a hybrid rationalization, claiming that one solider we wanted released was a "POW," and that we could do a swap of "POWs" even though we also say the Taliban prisoners released were NEVER POWs, and that the Taliban is not a recognized state actor to be accorded any of the rules of conventional war.

Which is acceptable. I'm glad we got Berghdahl out of there, and think we can and should negotiate with enemies, because that is part of resolving conflicts that don't all devolve to a zero-sum question of who can completely obliterate whom.

But you can't then claim that we simply "don't negotiate with terrorists" when the next situation comes up and it is not as politically expedient. Not and be taken seriously, anyway.

[TwilightGardener]

55. I think the Taliban is, for practical purposes, considered differently than AQ.

However they're designated, there are differences. We didn't trade AQ, and wouldn't. If you're looking for Geneva convention consistency, the Afghanistan war and the Gitmo situation just don't lend themselves to that, mostly our fault (enemy combatants, waterboarding, etc.). But I'm glad that didn't stand in the way of getting him back. As for civilians, I think a third-party broker is best (we did get a guy back from al-Nusra because of Qatar--did they pay them? who knows), and if that's not possible, then rescue. I don't think anyone has much influence with ISIS.

[DirkGently]

62. Exactly. "For practical purposes."

There is nothing wrong with practical purposes.

But then you have to recognize that you don't need to let someone be beheaded in order to stick rigidly to a theoretical principle.

Practicality should outweigh a rhetorical statement of public policy like "We don't negotiate with terrorists. Or allow anyone else to do so."

So which is more practical -- paying a ransom and saving an American life (or two), or giving a violent extremist group fodder to goad the U.S. into war?

[TwilightGardener]

71. There are differences between the situations that you must recognize.

We knew the Taliban very well, for decades. The Taliban/Haqqani network had to have a command structure in place that was disciplined enough to conduct a prisoner exchange, there had to be a credible mediator (Qatar), there had to be terms we could agree on, to conduct the prisoner swap. None of that exists with ISIS. So even if you look past the "we don't negotiate with terrorists", which has never been a hard and fast rule anyway--what apparatus is in place to pay a ransom to ISIS and ensure the hostages are returned? And how would paying ransoms affect more hostage-taking in the future? ISIS is a different animal, it holds thousands of people against their will, some for financial gain, some just for ideological reasons or sheer cruelty. They are holding something like a thousand or more Yazidi women, selling them, or just using them in other ways. The fact that they let some hostages go for $$ is not indicative of what they'd do with Americans, especially once the bombing started.

[geek tragedy]

28. There are plenty of rational distinctions, you just ignore them.

Soldiers and civilians get treated differently. For good reason. There is little risk of incentivizing the enemy to capture soldiers in combat. Much bigger risk for civilians.

Also, the most important thing about kidnapping policies is that they be secret. Because if they are known, that makes the likelihood of kidnapping much worse.

[nashville_brook]

24. the US and Britain are the only countries that don't negotiate.

why are american lives worth less? why are journalists not worth rescuing when corporate executives have insurance policies?

[geek tragedy]

33. Only 2/53 ISIL hostages were US.

Over 50 from Europe.

To put it another way, if you're a terrorist group looking for some quick cash and wishing to avoid encounters with special forces soldiers, will you target Americans or Spaniards?

[nashville_brook]

39. right, and if you want to provoke war, you target US citizens.

i think you understand now.

[geek tragedy]

41. US was doing airstrikes on ISIL before the murders.

Do you understand that?

[leftstreet]

12. Unless you're a Wall Street Bank demanding ransom n/t

[nashville_brook]

32. indeed!

[TwilightGardener]

14. Different situations--BTW, there's some dispute on whether the Taliban

is considered a terror organization, I've read that they are designated that way in some US agencies but not others, probably having to do with the AUMF to conduct war in Afghanistan. Either way, we are not going to defeat them, they are going to be part of the fabric of Afghanistan after we leave and we know that. However, Bergdahl was a soldier, not a civilian, and that does make a difference in terms of prisoner exchange. We had Taliban prisoners (and they were largely administrative/government personnel), they had an American prisoner, we're leaving Afgh., it made sense. I don't think we have any ISIS captives, or AQ, that we'd be willing to set free for hostages. The only way I could see arranging a ransom is if we gain vital intelligence and contacts and then bomb the shit out of them without actually paying them.

[DirkGently]

27. The State Dept. lists the Taliban as a terrorist org.

So apparently, we make prisoner swaps with SOME designated terrorist groups, but legally prevent people from negotiating with others.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

This is nothing new. But to pretend that we have some kind of policy-wise, consistent principle of not "negotiating with terrorists" is a joke. Negotiation is part of warfare. Police hostage negotiators negotiate with criminals and psychopaths.

We gain nothing from allowing people to be beheaded on television except convenient rhetoric for war hawks.

[geek tragedy]

35. "Allowing people to be beheaded"

OFFS. And people say there's no ODS.

They tried to rescue them.

But, no they did not funnel huge amounts of cash to ISIL. Because ISIL would just use that money to kill hundreds more people.

[DirkGently]

40. They knew where he was for months, according

to the family's comments in the article above.

A last-second, "days too late" rescue mission is all well and good, but when it fails and you also forbid negotiation, you know very well what's going to happen, don't you?

And I agree some people are deranged, but I think a much better case would be someone finding convoluted ways to rationalize support for negotiating with Middle Easter terrorists in one instance, and then declaring that we never do such things when the policy is reversed for political expediency, don't you?

[geek tragedy]

43. So you think Obama wanted them dead do he could use them as a

pretext for war?

Come out and say it instead of dancing around it.

Please provide evidence for your conspiracy theory that the US knew exactly where they were.

[nashville_brook]

47. this is about bad military POLICY putting our political actors in bad positions

you actually don't have to make it into anything else. UNLESS that's important to you in some way. maybe it's emotionally satisfying to make into a fight. it's not. policy is the making of people and we can make it better.

[geek tragedy]

58. Helping ISIL buy more weapons does

not seem like sound military policy.

[nashville_brook]

65. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait are giving ISIS $$ and weapons -- a focus on the big stuff will

will make everything else seem more legit.

[geek tragedy]

67. So the US should join them and also incentivize

hostage takers around the planet to start kidnapping Americans?

Nonsense.

[DirkGently]

74. "Start kidnapping Americans?" On which planet

do you currently reside? There is no policy one way or the other that will prevent Americans from being targets in the Middle East.

That ship sailed ... oh, about IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, ISRAEL, etc etc etc ago.

If U.S. policy had the first thing to do with protecting Americans abroad, it wouldn't include kidnapping and torturing people, or indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" with no charges.

And, once again, we negotiate with various unsavory parties all the time. As we know.

No one is safer because two Americans were publicly executed.

[geek tragedy]

76. Why do you think only 2 Americans

and 50 Europeans have been kidnapped.

Funding ISIL creates more victims .

[DirkGently]

88. Why do you think only "2 Americans" have ever been kidnapped?

... would be the better question.

Dozens of Westerners held hostage around the world, including at least eight Americans – seven in the Middle East and Africa; one in Mexico – face grim prospects for a successful return.

http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/americans-kidnapped-abroad-the-forgotten-hostage-crisis-20140815

Each year, U.S. citizens are abducted abroad. The State Department repeatedly warns Americans about kidnap threats in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico, Colombia, the Philippines and many African countries. Some Americans are held hostage for ransom. Others are used as political pawns. Few are rescued in a daring raid by a Navy SEAL team.
The State Department does not routinely report how many Americans are held hostage each year and rarely discloses the methods it is using to free them, but that doesn't mean the hostages are forgotten.

(snip)

In Nigeria, where the government declared a state of emergency on Jan. 9, the State Department noted kidnappings of five U.S. citizens in 2011, including two working on a ship off the Nigerian coast who were released after being held two weeks in the Niger Delta.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-25/kidnappings-danger-zones/52796992/1

[DirkGently]

77. THIS. Why haven't we DEMANDED SA

stop arming ISIS?

A $5 million ransom would somehow fuel terrorism all over the world, but we can't require our supposed "ally" to stop funneling untold zillions directly to ISIS?

[TwilightGardener]

80. Um, I think we did, a while back. There has been LOTS of wrestling and backroom

dealings with SA and Qatar on the whole "arming the rebels" deal. Note that the SA head of intelligence (Prince Bandar) was replaced last winter--I'll bet that had something to do with the mistake of arming what turned into ISIS.

[TwilightGardener]

78. I don't know that they currently are. They WERE, but now that they've built a monster

to overthrow Assad that threatens them, they probably stopped.

[DirkGently]

48. The Obama obsession is yours.

The fact is that the administration took two diametrically opposed positions here. I agreed with one, and not the other.

You find that both make perfect sense, somehow.

If there's a case for blind partisanship here, don't you think that cuts more against your proposition that the administration is right even when it contradicts itself?

Nor is it necessary to suspect that "Obama" wanted anyone dead. But by not doing everything possible to avoid the murder of two U.S. citizens, we DID strengthen an emotional public case for war.

That is the result of the policy, whatever the intention, like it or not.

[nashville_brook]

50. spot on. i actually copped to this blind partisanship in the lede.

it's so easy to get swept away in emotionality.

[TwilightGardener]

75. You need to take the family's comments with some skepticism. Not because

they are dishonest, but because they do not have reliable intel. The Sotloffs are the same way--they all insist they have "contacts" but it's hard to know how credible their sources are, or if they're being played by their Syrian contacts for political purposes.

[KoKo]

79. We did trade prisoners for service member....

so why not do it for Journalists? Make the trade for money or prisoner and go after the group holding hostages afterwards. Instead with Foley they went in with special ops in probably Rambo style and found he wasn't there. Where did the information of his location come from and why he was no longer there when they arrived. You don't send in Special Ops unless your sure you have good chance of success based on intelligence. So...did they get tricked by an informant?

Better that they paid money or did a hostage swap. If it was done for a servicemember then why not for a journalist? Foley was a Freelancer so he didn't have major MSM backing to pressure Govt. And, yet we depend on Freelancers since so many of our major news outlets have cut their Foreign Departments and the Reporters they have left are too high profile and valuable to go into areas where they are in immediate danger.

Unfortunately the cynic in me leads me to believe that the timing of beheading of the two Journalists was advantageous to both ISIL and the War Hawks who were still pissed that Obama backed off Syria a year ago.

[TwilightGardener]

83. Because servicemembers in combat zones are a different category than civilians.

Different regions, different circumstances, different organizations holding different categories of prisoners.

[eggplant]

45. 0-7. The alerter should relax a bit, I think.

On Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Did US policy on kidnappings create the pretense for war?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025530463

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

About This Forum: Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden. For more information, click here

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:31 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: nothing disruptive in this post. And this is not a conspiracy theory. If you disagree with the premise, then post a response. Stop trying to censor DU.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree with it. Sometime it may be a widely held conspiracy theory that belongs in another conspiracy theory forum but for now it belongs where it is.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[nashville_brook]

49. thanks for posting this. shows the level of rhetoric we're dealing with.

when you can't discuss policy without someone yelling "conspiracy" with their hair on fire.

[DirkGently]

51. Oh jeebus. Be nice if we could discuss things without

a few people keenly sniffing the air for any possible reflections on the Obama administration, leaping to the conclusion that every thought anyone ever has, if not utterly laudatory, is born of a wild-eyed hatred for the man, and trying to stomp it to death with fire-breathing outrage.

Let's be clear. This is U.S. policy we're talking about. Therefore, it is quite often screwed up.

The fact that a Democrat is in the White House is neither the sole factor as to whether a policy is a good or a bad one, or the sole reason anyone would have any thoughts about it.

[nashville_brook]

56. it's naive to think that the military, the executive branch and every State Dept

employee are on the same page. the article on the threats to the Foley family shows that the State Dept employee was not carrying a message given official approval by the Obama administration.

The problem here is that different actors are using the uncertainty to advance their own interests.

[DirkGently]

68. Good points. We don't even know who

planted their feet and told the family -- if that's what occurred -- that negotiation was forbidden.

The administration clearly doesn't have control of the NSA -- why assume State makes every decision in perfect synchronicity with the WH?

Who was motivated by what isn't the issue though.

The fact is that horrific outcomes for individual Americans are invaluable gifts to the usual chorus of ME war aficionados like McCain.

[nashville_brook]

91. right and it's the ambiguity in the policy vis a vis the international scene that gives cover

to whoever wants to fight hardest for it. and in that squabble, i'm going to put my money on the largest military ever in the history of anything.

[nashville_brook]

52. also, "meta-discussion"? that's way off.

why not just call it a recipe?

[DirkGently]

59. Zowie. "Meta" about what? The world?

Possibly the lamest alert I've ever seen. And that's quite a contest.

This OP of yours must seem very threatening to someone.

Good.

[Maedhros]

53. "Revenge" is not a valid reason to go to war, IMHO.

Just like "revenge" is not a valid reason for the death penalty.

[nashville_brook]

57. yes -- i'm really ashamed of feeling the way i did.

[DirkGently]

70. It's a hard-wired human response though, and thus

... politically effective. It's an empty pursuit, though.

Studies are suggesting that thinking about revenge stimulates the brain, but following through doesn’t improve the mood. The new studies suggest that actually acting on vengeful thoughts isn’t as gratifying as imagined, and can even make people feel worse. Pleasure anticipated from taking revenge, however, seems to be a powerful drive that appears to be hard-wired in the brain. Scientists from the University of Zurich found that just thinking about revenge stimulates a region of the brain called the dorsal striatum, known to become active in anticipation of a reward or pleasure, such as making money or eating good food.

http://www.cognitivetherapyforkids.com/revenge-may-be-hard-wired-but-the-payoff-is-not-so-sweet/

[TwilightGardener]

72. That's not why we're going to war. The war started in June.

The airstrikes started before the beheadings.

[woo me with science]

73. Senator Obama in 2007:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5521719

bvar22 (34,779 posts)
20. Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

President Obama in June 2014:

I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe. But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans.

Additionally, the president promised the West Point grads that he would not send them "into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak. ... America must always lead on the world stage ... but U.S. military action cannot be the only—or even primary—component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail."

It was even called the "Obama Doctrine" by some pundits, to distinguish it from the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war. And yet here we are again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/01/1302900/-Obama-Doctrine-Just-because-we-have-the-best-hammer-does-not-mean-that-every-problem-is-a-nail

[nashville_brook]

87. if this were a republican administration we'd be at DEFCON FUCK

and someday it will be a republican administration with clear precedence and even more heavily armed troops here and abroad.

[liberal_at_heart]

54. very good points.

[Octafish]

66. Excactly -- beheading as the new pretext for war.

A New Context?

The Bright Side of a Beheading

by BEN SCHREINER
CounterPunch, AUGUST 26, 2014

A mere year after having run into both popular and military resistance in their drive to bomb Syria, Washington’s political elite is once again busily prepping a hesitant American public for a plunge further into the Middle East.

Unlike a year ago however, when the pretext of choice was a chemical attack of suspicious origins within Syria, this time around the ruling elite are cynically capitalizing on the brutal execution of American journalist James Foley to justify their push for deeper military intervention. If only the Islamic State rebels had had the decency to kill Foley—and his whole extended family, for that matter—via a Predator drone. You know, like a civilized society.

Indicative of the naked cynicism oozing from Washington, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus took to the PBS Newshour Friday to argue that the beheading of Foley was actually quite a good thing, as it just might snap the American people out of their troublesome distaste for more imperial adventurism in that faraway region holding all that American oil.

Asked by a fretting Jody Woodruff just how a war-weary American public is to be rallied to support further military intervention in both Iraq and Syria, Marcus averred: “Well, I want to say this in a way that reflects the horror that the Foley family has had inflicted on them, but, in an odd way, having this quasi-public beheading actually helps move the American people, because we’re not going to tolerate that. And it really does underscore the seriousness of the threat.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/26/the-bright-side-of-a-beheading/

James Foley attended Marquette University. Among his teachers are many people I respect.

[nashville_brook]

89. the beheadings were like a surgical strike on opinion makers

the american public and the commentariat. NPR has been filled with the "war weary" discourse. then i go to social media and talk to real people and it's a whole different narrative. we're not having it.

call it war weary or call it Fuck The Hell Off, we're just having it. We've spent too long in other countries spending gadjillions of dollars while our people can't even get fair pay for a day's work -- or a sick day -- or decent public schools.

We're not just war weary, we're sick of ALL their bullshit.

[Octafish]

92. No one in a Democracy wants a war. Especially seeing who dies and who pays and who benefits.

So we have a Reichstagfeuer or Gulf of Tonkin or September 11 or ...

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-- Hermann Göring

[nashville_brook]

96. so true. and this is so irrational. not that any of the others weren't either.

maybe that's a requisite:

[jtuck004]

97. "No one in a Democracy wants a war." < Except for everyone who makes money from it. n/t

[True Blue Door]

69. What kind of brain-dead morality can only conceive of one bad guy at a time?

This isn't like World War 2 where it would have been physically impossible to fight the Nazis without Stalin. This is a regional terrorist group and a tinpot dictator, both cold-blooded, deliberate murderers of the innocent with curdled crocodile blood for souls. You can't clean a shit-stain by rubbing it with more shit.

[nashville_brook]

81. actually it's an insurgency, but who's keeping score.

[True Blue Door]

84. How is that more relevant than the agenda it represents?

[WillyT]

82. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

Excellent Points All !!!

[grahamhgreen]

85. Anything as a pretext. What have you got today? eventually a plane witll crash, then we can invade

Syria, and replace Assad with al-Qaeda affiliates.

[nashville_brook]

86. as i was writing this i wondered if i was making too much of the beheading pretext

"oh you're making too much of it."

but that's what snagged me into the war fervor. the social media engineered beheadings of young, awesome journalists. the people in it for reporting the truth. my people.

i wonder how many writers with real platforms also felt this way. i'm super surprised at Laurence O'Donnell's panel on the president's speech. It was smoking hot -- so maybe other people are seeing thru it too:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/the-military-stuff-will-make-it-all-worse-328322115558

[grahamhgreen]

94. It's disturbing to me that the people who kidnapped Sotloff are the ones we'll be funding....

OP time!

[nashville_brook]

98. yes indeed.

[TwilightGardener]

99. We do not know that that's true. This is the family's "sources", nothing of this has been confirmed

[DirkGently]

102. Do EET! n/t

[DirkGently]

101. Strange tidbit in that link -- Syrian opposition did the kidnapping?

Last edited Sat Sep 13, 2014, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

That's quite a bombshell, seems to me, if it's true. That would mean that it's the guys we now propose to arm / enrich / support who are responsible for the Americans being in captivity in the first place

[grahamhgreen]

103. Exactly.

[valerief]

100. The global .01% who own the U.S. WANT war.

They create reasons for it.

They can only do one thing. Make war to make money. Because they're insane.