Social Issues: War and Terrorism, Essay Example

Introduction

One of the major issues concerning war and terrorism are the capture and negotiated release of hostages. As the war on terror continues so does the rise in hostages captured. “This rise in hostages creates a demanding and complex task for hostage negotiators to facilitate the safe return of the hostages.” (Aelstyn 2009). The taking of hostages is a psychological dilemma that has faced America for many years during war and peacetime. Normally the United States has a policy of refusal to meet the demands of hostage takers. The situation where the Philippines decided to pull out early in the Iraq War in order to secure the release of some hostages was seen as a cowardly move that promoted the further abductions of three hostages from India and the murders of seven truck drivers. The American government vehemently believes that meeting the demands of hostage takers will lead to future hostage takings and demise of control over the hostage situations.

Sometimes is inevitable that a person will become captive and hostage during terroristic activity. The solution lies in tactical manoeuvres to secure the release of the hostage without compromising the integrity of the political system and government. In order to facilitate the release of a hostage first it must be examined the factors that contribute to the safe release of a hostage. “The Institute for Violent Groups (ISVG) has comprised qualitative data from 765 hostage situations in order to make an assessment on this topic. Independent variables were used to predict the future release of hostages.” (Yun 2009). A large majority of the findings from this study are contradictory to past research findings and the public perception of hostage terroristic situations. “During the past ten years over 2,000 people have fallen victim to hostage taking.” (Yun 2009). Macintyre states that hostage taking has become one of the most useful weapons a country could tactically use against another country (2006). It is very important for a hostage negotiator to know the predictability of a hostage to be released.

Literature Review

There are different types of terrorists and the must be discussed in order to properly evaluate the potential for hostage negotiating techniques to prevail. The Criminal Type hostage taker uses intimidation, fear and power to take over a hostage. The second type of hostage taker is a Crazie Type. There appears to be a loss of control or impulse by the hostage taker that leads to violence. The third and final type of hostage taker is the Crusader. “This type uses organized, intelligent and aggressive means of overtaking a situation in order to motivate the belief of why they are doing the hostage taking. This type mostly concentrates on complete destruction of government, political beliefs or symbols of law.” (Pittman 2007).

There is a theory that focuses on the hostage having control of whether he/she will survive the capture. Fully analyzing the predictability of the release of a hostage is an essential tool for the hostage’s safe release. This is a solution to the war on terrorism. Voss (2004) suggest the Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) be used for international kidnappings because they are well trained in this sort of takeover. “Further they combine crisis intervention, aggressive business negotiation, and academic negotiation technique data coupled with years of experience to negotiate a hostage situation.” (Yun 2009). Hostage negotiators realize that they must retain control over the hostage situation through communication techniques. “Other successful techniques to control the safe return of the hostage include “making sure the hostage taker is in a good coping mode, forgetting about deadlines that the hostage taker makes by overcoming them through communication and manipulating the environment that the hostage is being held captive.” (Yun 2009). It is very important to keep the volatility of the situation down to a minimum. The second important way to fight war on terrorism against capture of hostages is to remember that a tactical force should be used as part of a negotiation team with a police commander and without separate and sequential use of negotiation. Separate and sequential use of negotiation only promotes chaos and a lack of organization and time is of the essence when negotiating hostage situations. There is no room for mistakes to try again. People’s lives are at stake.

The American government shall make no provision offer concessions to hostage takers. Further it should be remembered that a hostage is a human life and hostage takers are criminals. The Terrorist Target Prevention Package (TTAP) is an effective measure implemented to reduce the risk of hostage takeover.

For the purpose of these studies for prevention and release several hostage situations were examined such as airline hostage takeovers, the 1972 Munich Olympics and a hostage negotiation failure in Malta. The Belsan situation in Russia was also examined to determine if a pre-negotiation plan could have changed the outcome of the hostage situation. It was found that the version of the journalists and public was different that the version stated by the Russian government. McKenzie (1984) feels the key to successfully preventing a full blown hostage situation is placing a liaison between the press and the police power. Of course psychological theories such as the rational choice theory and the bargaining theory have emphasis on the outcome of the hostage capture.

Let’s take a look at the terroristic hostage situation at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. Over 200 innocent children were killed at a daycares facility after being victim of an ammonium nitrate bomb being concealed in the bed of a Ryder truck. During the same year in Japan over 300 people were killed as the result of an ‘ultra-secret’ religious cult released gas at a nearby train station. Terrorists are often referred to as being ‘insane’ but they are far from that. Terrorists meticulously plan their attack with such intense organization it is recognized as being similar to military organizational planning. If a level of violence will achieve the desired result the terrorist will not hesitate to kill innocent people to accomplish their mission.

“Further noted of terrorist opposition was seen through the PKK/Kongra-Gel terrorist organization that have existed sine 1984. The PKK generated militants to lead the terroristic attacks through Kurdish population in Turkey and is the cause for the elongated terrorist activity in those nations.” (Nickbay 2007).

Aguilera and Mesick propose there are leading factors that promote terrorists to act and if government can eliminate some of these factors then the government can limit the terroristic attacks. “The first motivational factor to discuss once the terrorist has made his/her presence is communication. The terrorists already have in mind to kill if necessary thus the presence of tactical forces must be presented in a timely fashion not to induce stress to the terrorist.” (Pittman, 2007). Keeping in mind violence is the final threat of the hostage taker it is imperative for hostage negotiators to attempt to control the lack of communication between the two parties and keep the violence to a minimum. Of course in some situations like on airplane terroristic situations there is no hostage negotiator on board thus the lives of the people are at the mercy of their ability to deal with the terrorists. The second factor to consider is the Ambivalence Motivator of the hostage taker toward life. Effectively it is a matter of how far a hostage taker is willing to proceed to get his/her goal accomplished. This motivator is very important to access by hostage negotiators. It is up to the negotiator to provide the terrorist with realistic options other than to kill the hostages. “The third and final action of the hostage negotiator is to access the effect of his/her action and how it will affect the community’s safety and welfare at large.” (Pittman, 2007). The views of the captors, hostage takers and media input all influence whether the hostages will be released without undue harm.

“You have to determine whether the captors are extremists motivated by ideology, or if they are in it for money,” Livingstone says. (Keating 2009). Ideology based captures are more likely to end in disaster and death than money motivated captures as seen with the 9/11 incident with the Twin Towers. In a kidnapping situation the hostage takers cannot always be trusted or relied upon to act in favourable faith hence the captives’ life would be at risk if a true negotiation such as a pay-out was actually considered. “”Extremists don’t want money. They want to show their power. They want to kill the hostage and show their power.” In such a case, Livingstone says, ‘Publicity hurts’.” (Keating 2009). “South Africa and Nelson Mandela are merely one example of the effectiveness of terror when used to attain political or ideological objectives and political legitimacy.” (Pittman 2007).

Methodology

The data collected from the ISVG was in the form of books, transcripts, documents, newspapers, NGO reports and non-classified documentation. “Initially, the data in this study included 765 cases of hostage taking and kidnapping, excluding airplane hijacking cases, from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2006” were included in this study to predict future hostage releases. (Yun 2009). Can a hostage’s fate really be predicted through this method without interference from independent variables? “For the purposes of the study the dependent variables are the fate of hostages which are either the safe return or the non-safe return. The independent variables were Islamic religion, hostage’s demands, length of detention and whether a barricaded situation exists.” (Yun 2009). White suggests that religious based terroristic hostage situations are more likely to kill their hostage than any other hostage situation (2003). Research shows that hostage takers that are organized with a definitive pattern of demands ten to release their hostages free of harm or death. Research shows the longer a hostage stays in detention the higher his/her chance for survival. It is hypothesized that as time passes on there is a better chance of some type of relationship bonding between the captor and the captive. The location of the captive bears heavily on whether the hostage will be released due to cultural beliefs. With the presence of a barricade to keep a hostage in it is postured that the captor cannot safely escape either giving the hostage negotiator and advantage.

It is important for the hostage taker to know the presence of hostage negotiators are reality and are there to ensure the safe return of the hostages as well as minimal harm to the hostage taker if they cooperate. This process is known as the ‘balancing variable’ of hostage negotiation. Research shows there is need for constant data and communication in order to predict the hostage taker’s next move. A distorted view of communication efforts were seen in the Waco, Texas incident. Distortion of the situation brings really terrible consequences for all involved. The second factor of balancing a variable is situational support. It is hard to predict the unpredictable which is essentially what a hostage situation is-unpredictable. The best way to prepare for the unpredictable is to ensure skilled medical personnel are available on the spot, have psychiatrists readily available to aid in negotiations, have a top notch SWAT or tactical team on the scene and to possess excellent communication skills. The third and final stage of the balancing variable is the ability to wait out the situation with patience and enter when needed at the appropriate time. A hostage negotiator should only compromise to avoid bloodshed of victims. The longer the victims are in captivity the more excellent the chances are to wear down the hostage taker mentally and physically. There must be excellent technical abilities to conduct the hostage negotiation plan.

Discussions and Conclusions

Using variable from previous studies, recent studies and expert opinions it is theorized how the effect of war on terrorism can be controlled through safe negotiating techniques by predicting the outcome of the hostage. This is accomplished through qualitative measures which are contrary to past studies and some of the public’s thoughts on terrorism. When the hostage taker makes a ransom demand so does the chance of the hostage being released increase. It is predicted that the hostage’s life is a pawn or security and will be spared until the ransom or request is met. With respect to religion no data showed Islamism’s to enact their threat on hostages more than any other religion. It appears Islamic threats may be over exaggerated by the television programs in America. The tendency to kill a hostage is the same across the board with respect to religion. Results showed as the length of detention increases the chance of survival stays about even. Hostages in today’s society chance no higher risk of being executed than past hostages and further there is not a contribution to geographic location. The results for barricade presence were inconclusive because studies used an inadequate representative size of sample.

It is a fact that hostage taking has increased with the War of Iraq but the results are not empirically based. Further these beliefs are socially and politically influence by politicians and television.

The practises of ethnic genocide, assassination, indiscriminate torture, rape and abduction have shown significant resistance to U.S. military force in some countries such as Bosnia and Libya. “American diplomats have been murdered in Khartoum and Afghanistan, U.S. military officers in France, Greece, Lebanon, Panama, and the Philippines. American citizens have been slain in the skies over Scotland, in ships on the Mediterranean, and airports in Rome and La Guardia.” (Pittman 2007). Terrorism will most likely be used as a dominant weapon in the future hence our military and government must be fully to handle such high-intensity situations through preparation to reduce casualties and free the hostages. Effective development strategies will be deployed through the use of hiring educated and skilled hostage negotiators. The hostage negotiators and the other police negotiating members are the lifeline for the captured.

Works Cited

Aelstyn, M. (2009) The Art of Dealing with Terrorism Retrieved November 14, 2009 from, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/6/3/6/9/p163690_index.html

Yun, M. (2009) Hostage Taking and Kidnapping in Terrorism: Predicting the Fate of a Hostage Retrieved November 14, 2009 from, http://kucampus.kaplan.edu/documentstore/docs09/pdf/picj/vol2/issue1/Hostage_Taking_and_Kidnapping_in_Terrorism.pdf

Pittman, J. (2007) Negotiation Strategies in Hostage Scenarios Retrieved November 15, 2009 from, http://c21.maxwell.af.mil/amedd/hostage_negotiation.htm

Keating, S. (2009) Hostage Negotiation-An Interview with Anti-Terrorism Expert Dr. Neal Livingstone Retrieved November 15, 2009 from, http://ezinearticles.com/?Hostage-Negotiation—An-Interview-With-Anti-Terrorism-Expert-Dr-Neil-Livingstone&id=1838583

Nickbay, O. (2007) Understanding and responding to the terrorism phenomenon, a multi-dimensional perspective Retrieved November 15, 2009 from, http://books.google.com/books?id=VetpnPMEY-UC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=war+and+terrorism+negotiating+hostage+situations&source=bl&ots=h_TNSd8FKv&sig=Np-i97VCe25BrdXoetYSXx-bNMA&hl=en&ei=HTAAS5nWFMmBnQfe9qUS&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=war%20and%20terrorism%20negotiating%20hostage%20situations&f=false