 |
| Welcome home, Bowe |
“U.S. policy has changed,” declared Senator Ted Cruz on Sunday, “Now we make deals with terrorists.” [1]
President Obama recently announced that after being held in captivity for five years by the Afghani Taliban, Sargent Bowe Bergdahl was freed. In exchange, the United States released five members of Taliban from Guantanamo Bay. Ted Cruz and other Republicans say this deal violates the U.S.’s policy of never negotiating with terrorists. These critics argue this gives terrorists an incentive to take more American soldiers hostage. The Obama Administration responds that this deal was a simple exchange of prisoners of war, which the U.S. has done with adversaries throughout history. [2]
So which is it? Negotiating with terrorists (a dangerous new precedent), or a POW swap (a routine tactic with long-standing historical precedent)?
President Obama recently announced that after being held in captivity for five years by the Afghani Taliban, Sargent Bowe Bergdahl was freed. In exchange, the United States released five members of Taliban from Guantanamo Bay. Ted Cruz and other Republicans say this deal violates the U.S.’s policy of never negotiating with terrorists. These critics argue this gives terrorists an incentive to take more American soldiers hostage. The Obama Administration responds that this deal was a simple exchange of prisoners of war, which the U.S. has done with adversaries throughout history. [2]
So which is it? Negotiating with terrorists (a dangerous new precedent), or a POW swap (a routine tactic with long-standing historical precedent)?
On it’s face, this seems like a silly semantic debate. Yes, America classifies the Taliban as a terrorist organization. And yes, both Sargent Bergdahl and the Gitmo detainees for which we traded his life are for all intents and purposes prisoners of war. Does it really matter whether we call this a compromise with terrorists or a POW swap?
If you see this as merely a semantic debate, you may think the key question is something like, “how evil are the Taliban?” Are they so evil that a deal with the Taliban is essentially a deal with the devil? But this is the wrong question. Remember that during World War II, the United States negotiated prisoner exchanges with the Nazis, who are surely the standard bearers of evil. [3]
If instead we are interested in the strategic implications this recent bargain for Bowe’s life, then we must ask, “why didn’t America’s POW exchanges with Germany during WWII encourage the Nazis to take more U.S. soldiers hostage?” What is the strategic difference between a POW swap and what we refer to as negotiating with terrorists?
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a group of criminals busts into a bank, guns blazing, and takes a bunch of hostages. The criminals demand a million-dollar ransom for their release. This is the classsic "should we negotiate with terrorists" game. In this situation, if we meet the criminals’ demands, we will only set the stage for future hostage-taking. But when we are engaged in a ground war in which both sides are already taking aim at each other’s soldiers, that’s a different game altogether.
In the case of the bank robbers, the ransom money is the criminals' only reason to take hostages. So if we refuse to pay ransoms, then we eliminate the incentive to take hostages in the first place. In contrast, the Nazis already had plenty of incentive to kill or capture Allied troops. When you are engaged in war, it is always in your best interest to take enemy soldiers off the battlefield. Because they are shooting at you. So in the "POW swap" situation, even if you are negotiating with Nazis, with pure evil, with the devil, a policy of never negotiating prisoner swaps with them would not eliminate their inherent incentive to kill or capture our guys and/or gals.
Today our enemy in Afghanistan is not a nation-state but a terrorist organization. This difference, however, is strategically irrelevant. The difference between the particular game we refer to as "negotiating with terrorists" and the game we refer to as "POW swaps" has nothing to do with whether the agent we are negotiating with is a terrorist group. The only relevant difference is whether or not we are already committed to an extended ground war with that agent.
Don’t fool yourself: as long as America continues our war in Afghanistan, the Taliban will take every opportunity they have to kill or capture U.S. troops. Regardless of our policy on prisoner exchanges. Because we are shooting at them.
In fact, I’ll take it one step further. When America is at war, we should actually want to give our enemies a reason to capture U.S. troops — and to keep them alive and unharmed — rather than killing them on the spot.
There is one more security concern worth addressing here. The five Taliban detainees who we handed over in exchange for Sargent Bergdahl’s freedom were among the most dangerous terrorists in Guantanamo. [4] If any one of these Taliban fighters ends up killing more Americans, then in hindsight this swap will be judged to have been a devastating mistake. The Obama Administration claims to have secured assurances from the government of Qatar, where these prisoners will be released, that they will not be allowed to return to the battlefield. [5]
However, there is no doubt in my mind that the CIA and the American military will be watching every move these terrorists make for the rest of their lives. Since I’m sure all five of these Islamic extremists read my blog, here’s a personal message to them: if you so much as even think about plotting another terrorist attack, we will know, and we will not hesitate to kill you.
Welcome home, Bowe. Your life is far more valuable than a whole dump-truck full of Taliban mongrels. This deal to reunite you with your loved ones was an excellent bargain.
