![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics2 Hostages Killed in Yemen as U.S. Rescue Effort Fails
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/world/middleeast/hostage-luke-somers-is-killed-in-yemen-during-rescue-attempt-american-official-says.html
United States commandos stormed a village in southern Yemen early Saturday in an effort to free an American photojournalist held hostage by Al Qaeda, but the raid ended in tragedy, with the kidnappers killing the American and a South African held with him, United States officials said.
The hostages — Luke Somers, an American photojournalist, and Pierre Korkie, a South African teacher — were killed by their captors, militants from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, when they realized the rescue effort was underway. President Obama said he had authorized the operation, led by about three dozen Navy SEAL Team 6 commandos, after concluding that Mr. Somers’s life was in “imminent danger.”
But the worst part is that apparently, Korkie's release had already been agreed, and he was about to be let go on the following day. But Obama went ahead with the operation anyway, knowing full well that the risk of failure and a fatal outcome was immense.
This is raising some questions about the current US approach to sorting out such situations: not only is the question pertinent whether using force in delicate situations like the release of hostages, rather than negotiation, is the best option available; but this could also extend to using remotely controlled drone aircraft to take out terrorist leaders, often risking to cause huge collateral damage in civilian lives in the process.
Some would argue that the latter option in both cases is what seems to be the easier one, is caused by laziness and inability/unwillingness to be flexible, or fear of paying a much higher political cost at home in case of failure (as opposed to almost certainly causing damage away from home but not risking anything that the US public holds dear - like US lives and resources). And last but not least, is this a result of a hawkish approach to dealing with international matters that has increasingly permeated US foreign policy ever since 9-11, and which Obama's generous promises for "change" have indeed changed, but only to the worse.
At least one of these hostages could have been safely reunited with his family by now, possibly even the other, if negotiations were given a chance. Instead, Obama personally took the decision to go for the easier, lazier, and ultimately as it turns out, wrong way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/world/middleeast/hostage-luke-somers-is-killed-in-yemen-during-rescue-attempt-american-official-says.html
United States commandos stormed a village in southern Yemen early Saturday in an effort to free an American photojournalist held hostage by Al Qaeda, but the raid ended in tragedy, with the kidnappers killing the American and a South African held with him, United States officials said.
The hostages — Luke Somers, an American photojournalist, and Pierre Korkie, a South African teacher — were killed by their captors, militants from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, when they realized the rescue effort was underway. President Obama said he had authorized the operation, led by about three dozen Navy SEAL Team 6 commandos, after concluding that Mr. Somers’s life was in “imminent danger.”
But the worst part is that apparently, Korkie's release had already been agreed, and he was about to be let go on the following day. But Obama went ahead with the operation anyway, knowing full well that the risk of failure and a fatal outcome was immense.
This is raising some questions about the current US approach to sorting out such situations: not only is the question pertinent whether using force in delicate situations like the release of hostages, rather than negotiation, is the best option available; but this could also extend to using remotely controlled drone aircraft to take out terrorist leaders, often risking to cause huge collateral damage in civilian lives in the process.
Some would argue that the latter option in both cases is what seems to be the easier one, is caused by laziness and inability/unwillingness to be flexible, or fear of paying a much higher political cost at home in case of failure (as opposed to almost certainly causing damage away from home but not risking anything that the US public holds dear - like US lives and resources). And last but not least, is this a result of a hawkish approach to dealing with international matters that has increasingly permeated US foreign policy ever since 9-11, and which Obama's generous promises for "change" have indeed changed, but only to the worse.
At least one of these hostages could have been safely reunited with his family by now, possibly even the other, if negotiations were given a chance. Instead, Obama personally took the decision to go for the easier, lazier, and ultimately as it turns out, wrong way.
