# Taliban demands Karzai swap prisoners for Afghans



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

*We knew it was going to happen*

Taliban demands Karzai swap prisoners for Afghans
Updated Wed. Mar. 28 2007 1:43 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The Taliban have kidnapped six Afghan medical workers in another attempt to exploit President Hamid Karzai's government into releasing more prisoners. 

"The latest is that the Taliban are demanding that two of their prisoners in the Kandahar jail be released," said CTV's Paul Workman from Kandahar. 

Contact has been made with the Taliban and with the prisoners, Workman said, but no deadline has been set for demands to be met. 

The request comes after Karzai approved the release of five Taliban prisoners in exchange for Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo. 

"It's a very difficult issue for Afghan President Hamid Karzai," said Workman. 

"The precedent was set last week by releasing the Italian so the question for the Afghans is: 'Is the life of an Italian journalist worth more than the life of six Afghans who are now being held by the Taliban?'" asked Workman. 

The Afghan workers -- a doctor, nurse, midwife, pharmacist and two drivers -- were on their way home from a refugee camp last night when they were grabbed. 

"Everybody predicted that by giving into the Taliban in the first place it was really an invitation to them to take more hostages," said Workman. 
More on link


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2007)

> The request comes after Karzai approved the release of five Taliban prisoners in exchange for Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo.



Am I the only one who didn't see this comming?


----------



## Mike Baker (28 Mar 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who didn't se this comming?


Nope, unfortunately.


----------



## mckee19 (28 Mar 2007)

i did not see it coming either flawed design


----------



## Armymedic (28 Mar 2007)

I believe Flawed's sarcasm was lost into the internet translation.

This is why you do not negotiate with terrorists.....Get that Jack?


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2007)

Exactly Saint Mike.

A while ago (was it Iraq or Afghanistan?) some Italian reporters were kidnapped. Italy secretly brokered a deal with the bad guys to pay a ransom for the hotages. I say secretly because the US wouldn't agree to it, so the Italians did it behind their back.
Ergo the Italians didn't warn the Americans (including American check point) what was going on, apparently driving towards the check point the driver or someone paniced, didn't stop, shots were fired and the driver was killed. The reporter then went on to shit talk the Americans.

Anyways, long story short giving in too hostage takers demands is STUPID STUPID STUPID because the "success" only prompts the bad guys to do it again and again.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (28 Mar 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Exactly Saint Mike.
> 
> A while ago (was it Iraq or Afghanistan?) some Italian reporters were kidnapped. Italy secretly brokered a deal with the bad guys to pay a ransom for the hotages.



That was in Afghanistan. Just a few weeks ago. And within days of the deal/trade, Pres Karzai said in an interview with Paul Workman that he regretted the deal, but he didn't want Italians to feel that their lives were not important. He said that the decision was regretful and IIRC that there wouldn't be any more deals of this type made.  

I'll dig up the link to put here.

EDIT: edited to add link mentioned in post.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070323/afghanistan_karzai_070323/20070323/


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2007)

Was that not the female Italian where the checkpoint fired on the car because it did not stop, as she was being rushed back to the embassy?

That was in Iraq.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (29 Mar 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Was that not the female Italian that the checkpoint fired on the car as she was being rushed back to the embassy?


No. 
There WAS an incident of that a few years ago in Baghdad, but in reference with the Taliban prisoner exchange, there was an Italian taken hostage by them who was later released after a  prisoner exchange deal was reached with the Taliban.


----------



## Gardiners1 (29 Mar 2007)

Way to go Karzai.  Once these guys know their tactics work you are in for some kind of shitstorm.  If they don't make this swap then you risj Afghans wondering why they released prisoners to get a foreign journalist freed but won't do the same for Afghans.


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2007)

Gardiners1 said:
			
		

> Way to go Karzai.  Once these guys know their tactics work you ar ein for some kind of shitstorm.  If they don't make this swap then you risj Afghans wondering why they released prisoners to get a foreign journalist freed but won't do the same for Afghans.



And the Taliban will not hesitate to kill these people....sure glad I am not Karzai


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Mar 2007)

He should respond, release the prisoners or we will chop the feet off of your friends.


----------



## pbi (30 Mar 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> He should respond, release the prisoners or we will chop the feet off of your friends.



And there's the problem. The baddies have the Karzai Govt just where they want them, as they no doubt knew they would. I wonder if they specifically targeted a rather faint-hearted NATO partner for their first victim, knowing that the recently-shaken Prodi gov't, havingly narrowly survived a vote of non-confidence over Italy's (low-risk) committment to Afghanistan, would seek to cut a deal ASAP?

Here's the dilemma as I see it:

Don't do the exchange: "Afghans aren't worth as much as foreigners"';

Don't do the exchange, hostages killed: "Karzai Govt are murderers" (and see above);

Don't do the exchange, torture or kill the Taleban prisoners: " Karzai Govt are war criminals";  "Karzai Govt tortures prisoners";  "Our brothers are martyred to the cause, Allah be praised. On with the fight to honour them!" (Oh, yes, and what happens to the Afghan hostages...?)

Do the exchange: "Karzai Govt is weak and gives in to terrorists who will do it again"

Do the exchange but rig up a trick and kill or recapture the Taleban: Hmmm......well-maybe.

Not an easy choice. And the baddies (and friends) know exactly how to work Western govts via public opinion, especially in European countries like Italy who have little heart for their involvement in Afgh.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## casing (30 Mar 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> I wonder if they specifically targeted a rather faint-hearted NATO partner for their first victim, knowing that the recently-shaken Prodi gov't, havingly narrowly survived a vote of non-confidence over Italy's (low-risk) committment to Afghanistan, would seek to cut a deal ASAP?



Exactly right!  They might be terrorists, but they aren't dummies.  The instant Karzai cut that deal for the Italian their filthy grins expanded exponentially.  This is a no-win situation and as such, the response should cut this new tactic off now.  Even though it will end up giving the good guys a black eye.


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2007)

Ahhh yes... between a rock and a hard place !!!

This should be interesting - unfortunately, I can only see this going one way.
When you get down to it, the taliban use IEDs and VBIEDs and Kamikrazies... they blow up Afghan citzen without thinking twice.... these captives are toast,


----------



## pbi (2 Apr 2007)

I'm not so sure about this. The Karzai gov't have to weigh the effects of two options here:

a)  Stonewall the exchange, and risk the torture or death (no doubt highly publicized) of innocent Afghans who represent a tiny class of educated professionals trying to help their own people. It is the growth and development of this important class, and of an Afghanistan that can produce and sustain such people in a civil society, that is supposed to be our ultimate objective in being in Afghanistan in the first place. Killing baddies may be necessary, but it isn't the main objective. Does Kharzai send the message to his own people that they are expendable, but the nationals of Western countries aren't? Do I hear  cries of "puppet government"? On the other hand, the govt will look strong and determined and the Taleban might stop taking hostages if they see it is a no-win for them;  or


b) Enter into an exchange deal, and lose the Taleban prisoners and whatever value they represent. This would appear to be encouraging further hostage taking, and thus putting at risk all civil agencies working in the AO, whether Afgh, NGO, or whatever. It could even lead to attempts  to kidnap NATO military personnel. If the Taleban wants a couple of the brothers sprung, they just scoop some suitable soft targets and ring up  Kabul. On the other hand, cutting a deal would demonstrate to Afghans that Kharzai thinks their lives are worth at least as much as those of foreigners, which might be a useful bit of political credit for him.

In the end, he is accountable to the Afghan people, not to us or to the US or the Italian government. He has to decide what will contribute to success in the long run and what will make things worse. I don't think the Taleban will stop taking hostages any time soon no matter what he does: the PR value is just too high and too embarrassing for the govt. Preventing it is almost impossible.   Kharzai has already set a moral precedent when he agreed to deal on the Italians. As strange as it seems, the best course of action may be to cut a deal in this case. Whatever he chooses, he will be condemned and someone will suffer.

Cheers


----------



## geo (2 Apr 2007)

pbi...
any deal will have only one IMMEDIATE effect... the kidnapping of more people.

NOT an option.

IMHO


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2007)

geo - would you offer the same advice if it was pbi being held?


----------



## sober_ruski (3 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> He should respond, release the prisoners or we will chop the feet off of your friends.



a la Ruskie style with sending heads of hostage taker's family member to... persuade them to release the hostages?


----------



## geo (3 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> geo - would you offer the same advice if it was pbi being held?



Unfortunately for PBIs sake..... the answer would probably be... yes!

The sooner the TB are shown that this tactic does not work, the better.
(or do you have a DS solution to propose?)


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for PBIs sake..... the answer would probably be... yes!
> 
> The sooner the TB are shown that this tactic does not work, the better.
> (or do you have a DS solution to propose?)



No....unfortunately I don't have a better answer either.  I was just thinking about how difficult these decisions become when they are personal.  Biggest command burden going I guess - not offering yourself up as a sacrifice but demanding sacrifice of others.


----------



## pbi (3 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> geo - would you offer the same advice if it was pbi being held?



Ha!

Here's another thought: the use of deception to cause self-immolation. We might use the exchange of the Taelban to our advantage.

 Events over the last few months have shown us that the Taleban leadership suspects or has evidence that they have been infiltrated. On two separate occasions that I have read of, they have purged numbers of suspected "traitors and spies". A basic principle of deception is to play to what the target is already inclined to believe, or tyyo his worst fear. So, I would begin a deception campaign, using various sources and creating various "evidence" through credible channels to suggest that key Taleban figures held in custody have been turned. (actually persuading some to turn would be even better..). Then, do the exchange. If the deception campaign is managed properly, I think that there is a very good chance that the released Taleban will shortly be purged as well. Besides ridding ourselves of two more baddies, it might also begin to raise doubts in the minds of the remaining prisoners as to the wisdom of actually going back to the "homies". Of course, it might fail, too. There is risk in doing anything or in doing nothing. But it strikes me that we will only defeat these people by exploiting their weaknesses, not by smashing headlong into their strengths.

Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Apr 2007)

The British were very successful in turning CT’s in Malaysia, which had a major impact on the insurgency. It would be less successful with the hardcore Taliban. But I do like the idea for lesser fish and for “tainting” the hardcore types so they are viewed with suspicion.


----------



## geo (3 Apr 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Ha!
> Here's another thought: the use of deception to cause self-immolation. We might use the exchange of the Taelban to our advantage.



... But I was counting on your self immolation 

There is a need to prove to the taliban that the concept of kidnapping citzens & guest workers is bad for their health.  Short of having some of our guys walking into their ranks with a Kamikaze vest (= quid pro quo) the only alternative that these jokers will understand is out saying "no!"

.... Wonder if surgicaly implanting a GPS responder on the TB hostages would be an option???


----------

