Yesterday, an Italian journalist who was captured and held hostage for 15 days by the Taliban in southern Afghanistan was exchanged for five Taliban prisoners. The ransom was confirmed by both the Italian government and Afghan officials, and the U.S. State Department and officials in European capitals were quick to criticize the deal, condemning public negotiation with terrorists. This story highlights a moral quandary: how much is a life worth? How does a government, or an individual, weigh the life of one vs. the potential lives of many at the hands of the Taliban? And does this make life more dangerous for aid workers and reporters in combat zones?
Blog Of The Nation
This is an ancient quandary.
The conventional wisdom - and I subscribe to it - is that deals such as the Italians struck so ENCOURAGE the taking of hostages and further blackmail by the Taliban as an easy way to achieve their goals as to make it inevitable. Refusing to deal, conversely, discourages such behavior. The only way it might make sense is if the Italians planned to quickly and permanently remove all Italians (and others of value to them) from the Taliban's reach so that the latter COULD not repeat the performance. This seems unlikely.
To "weigh the life of one vs. the potential lives of many" (which, presumably, might be taken by the five exchanged prisoners if they are returned to the Taliban) is to view the situation through a narrow, tactical lens. The more important strategic view weighs the value of the life against the prospect, nay certainty, of unremitting blackmail and what will or may be lost in that process if the deal is struck.
I say it is a slippery slope, and the Italians are already on their backsides and approaching Mach 1 going down the hill.
T.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.