The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[TrentVilla]

Didn't expect this.

 

Iran's Supreme Leader has approved co-operation with the US as part of the fight against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, sources have told BBC Persian.

Ayatollah Khamenei has authorised his top commander to co-ordinate military operations with the US, Iraqi and Kurdish forces, sources in Tehran say.

Iran has traditionally opposed US involvement in Iraq, an Iranian ally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29079052

[ender4]

So if The West just leave IS to get on with what they want to do, and IS then control Syria & Iraq...

 

1) does it matter?

 

2) What happens next?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Iran don't need much of an excuse to get stuck into the Saudi's mates.

[Awol]

Didn't expect this.

Iran's Supreme Leader has approved co-operation with the US as part of the fight against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, sources have told BBC Persian.

Ayatollah Khamenei has authorised his top commander to co-ordinate military operations with the US, Iraqi and Kurdish forces, sources in Tehran say.

Iran has traditionally opposed US involvement in Iraq, an Iranian ally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29079052

Already happening and they've been sharing the battle space for weeks, nevertheless very good news that they are comfortable enough to make that cooperation public and put the gaffer's name on it.

Riyadh will be spitting feathers, welcome back Iran!

[peterms]

Banksy, allegedly. But who can know for sure?

[Ikantcpell]

[Xann]

Fox and Dubya - True love never dies.

[Vive_La_Villa]

Are people really worried about the IS threat? Just don't watch the news for a few weeks and you'll be fine.

[TrentVilla]

Seemingly IS have now executed (by their normal method) one of the Lebanese soldiers they captured in Arsal because prisoners weren't released, he is the second they've killed.

I assume the French must have paid a heft fee for the safe return of their hostage.

[Guest]

Are people really worried about the IS threat? Just don't watch the news for a few weeks and you'll be fine.

 

I'm not worried about IS. The concern is the nutters who might think copycat killings in the name of Islam is the way forward.

[chrisp65]

Seemingly IS have now executed (by their normal method) one of the Lebanese soldiers they captured in Arsal because prisoners weren't released, he is the second they've killed.

I assume the French must have paid a heft fee for the safe return of their hostage.

 

Well, the French like to do things differently.

 

They don't appear to understand the oh so obvious consequences of paying ransoms.

 

They also appear perfectly happy to sink the boats of save the whale hippies but reluctant to engage against people who can put up a fight.

 

I may be stereotyping slightly, very slightly.

[HanoiVillan]

One of the oh so obvious consequences of paying ransoms is getting your citizens back alive, as opposed to watching people behead them and put videos of that act on YouTube. 

[chrisp65]

One of the oh so obvious consequences of paying ransoms is getting your citizens back alive, as opposed to watching people behead them and put videos of that act on YouTube. 

 

oh, in which case hallelujah I have seen the light!

 

let's pay this ransom and end the kidnapping

 

hadn't realised it would be that simple

[HanoiVillan]

Well, it's hardly a trivial benefit, is it?

 

I really don't understand why it's a matter of such absolute moral certainty to British and American people that paying ransoms is always wrong. It's notable that most other governments, especially in developed economies, take the opposite approach (it's not just France at all). 

 

There seem to be two arguments made for 'don't negotiate, don't pay ransoms' - the first is the morality/legitimacy argument. But this doesn't seem watertight - after all, the money for IS and related Islamic terror groups is coming from middle-class Gulf-staters, who are at least partly wealthy due to the implicit western backing of their governments. We sell vast amounts of arms to Saudi Arabia. We pretend that Bahrain isn't a part of the 'Arab Spring' because it's an ally. We ignore human rights concerns, total absence of democratic legitimacy, and whatever else because these countries have oil. We provide plenty of indirect backing to the exact same individuals that fund these movements. 

 

The other argument is the effectiveness argument, which says that if you pay ransoms, you create an incentive for terrorists to take more hostages. But this argument founders rather on the real life case study of Somali pirates, who were continually being paid ransoms by both governments and shipping companies, but who, after a concerted international policing operation, have basically fallen completely off the map. 

 

In short, maybe it's time for a re-think, and just remember, there is always that benefit that several individuals who would otherwise be deprived of them get to keep their heads on. 

[chrisp65]

I'm not sure that the Somali pirate example stands up very well.

Companies, countries and individuals were paying ransoms, and the number of acts of piracy increased. Eventually the problem got so big it was decided we needed to stop paying ransoms and try another tactic. This has largely stopped the piracy. How does that suggest paying ransoms is a good strategy?

[HanoiVillan]

'We' didn't decide to stop paying ransoms. Shipping companies and non English-speaking governments would still pay ransoms today if the pirates were taking crews, Lloyd's of London sell insurance policies for precisely that eventuality. The decision to stop the pirates was based on their economic impact to global shipping, by increasing the cost of East-West goods transportation through the Suez Canal. 

 

And, of course, by paying ransoms, people didn't end up dead, who may very well have ended up dead otherwise. Once more, not a trivial benefit. 

 

EDIT: To make my point clearer, the Somali example suggests that paying ransoms in combination with other strategies has the potential to both save lives and decrease hostage-taking. 

Edited September 8, 2014 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

well, I guess we're going to have to agree to differ on this one

 

I'm not a fan of paying ransoms 

[LondonLax]

I read a very interesting article about the pitfalls of paying ransoms to terrorists and the inflationary spiral it creates, particularly for families who are priced out and can no longer afford to pay the demand once the terror group knows a state government will potentially step in and pay millions instead of the thousands they were originally asking for. I will see if I can find it.

[HanoiVillan]

well, I guess we're going to have to agree to differ on this one

 

I'm not a fan of paying ransoms 

 

Fair enough! Thanks for the conversation. And no hard feelings - these are difficult subjects. 

 

 

I read a very interesting article about the pitfalls of paying ransoms to terrorists and the inflationary spiral it creates, particularly for families who are priced out and can no longer afford to pay the demand once the terror group knows a state government will potentially step in and pay millions instead of the thousands they were originally asking for. I will see if I can find it.

 

There is obviously this risk, which is why paying ransoms needs to be done in combination with other operations to reduce the power of the hostage-takers. Paying ransoms isn't enough in isolation. 

[TrentVilla]

I can't see how paying ransoms can't lead to more hostages being taken, it is almost certain that this will be the case.

 

That isn't to say that I disagree with paying (although I probably do) them but to argue that this wouldn't be the consequence of such an action just doesn't ring true to me. I don't really see the example of the Somali pirates being evidence of that this isn't a direct consequence, if anything I think its an example that demonstrates that the two things are linked as it became a hugely profitable business for them.