The Taliban has agreed to release the remaining 19 South Korean hostages, the South Korean government and the Taliban confirmed Tuesday.
South Korean presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-sun said the release was "on the condition that South Korea withdraws troops by the end of year and South Korea suspends missionary work in Afghanistan," he said.
Great. Now the Taliban is bolstered. Now it knows that it can kidnap innocents and use them as bargaining chips. I expect further kidnappings to continue at an accelerated pace.
I have to ask though, if South Korea has any real compassion for the 28 South Koreans that died on 9/11? Do they even give a damn?
No one wants to see those 19 civilians killed. Yet pulling out, cutting and running from the battle zone and giving into a bullies demands I believe just leads to more harm not less.
I don't know. It seems to me the Koreans agreed to do what they had already announced they were going to do. The Koreans had announced they were going to leave at the end of the year, and basically, they agreed not to change their mind. Hardly a big concession.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "missionary work", was the S. Korean government actually involved in missionary work in Afghanistan? I doubt it. In which case the government basically agreed to stop doing something they were never doing (unless the S. Korean government is going to actively stop S. Korean missionaries from going to Afghanistan with their church groups, which I doubt).
It seems to me the Koreans agreed to do something they were going to do anyway, and to stop doing something they were never doing.
That's not exactly "appeasement" is it? Seems to me, they pulled a fast one on the Taliban.
Taliban - 1 Korean integrity - 0
ReplyDeleteThere will be negative repercussions from this for those who fight for decency and humanity in the face of theological totalitarianism.
"I don't know. It seems to me the Koreans agreed to do what they had already announced they were going to do. The Koreans had announced they were going to leave at the end of the year, and basically, they agreed not to change their mind. Hardly a big concession."
ReplyDeleteIf it's measured only in terms what they would have done anyways. What they've done is far worse than just cutting and running from Afghanistan, like they already planned to do. What they've done is they've left the impression that they did it because terrorism works.
So yes it was not just a big concession, it was a huge whopper of a one.
"As for the "missionary work", was the S. Korean government actually involved in missionary work in Afghanistan? I doubt it."
Read the linked article. The hostages that the South Koreans were trying to free were part of a Christian Aid group.
My assumption was that the missionary work the deal is talking about is not anything officially sanctioned by the South Korean government only allowed. There is plenty of missionary work going on in Iraq from what I know of by independent Christian groups so I wouldn't doubt that there is a fair bit going on in Afghanistan as well.
How much of that missionary work was specifically from free willing South Korean Christians? Probably not much. Will this deal do much to limit it? Probably not either. It's the principle of thing Lord Kitchener. Something no one seems willing to fight for anymore.
Well, on the withdrawl thing, since they were going to withdraw anyway, the terrorists were ALREADY going to paint their withrdrawl as a victory for the terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, this deal makes that stance LESS credible.
If the Koreans hadn't made this deal, the terrorists would still have painted their withdrawl as either a capitulation in the face of defeat, or a realization that they never should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place. NOW, the S. Koreans can argue that neither of those arguments is true (if they want) and that they left simply because cowardly terrorists kidnapped innocent civilians and threatened to slaughter them if they stayed.
Without the deal, the Koreans are spun as having withdrawn either because of certain military defeat, or some moral objection to continuing to assist in Afghanistan. NOW, there's an alternative to that spin (not that that is why the Koreans made the deal, but I think it goes to show that the deal to withdraw doesn't "show that terrorism works" any more than their original decision to withdraw did, and that's how the terrorists were going to spin it regardless). On this point, I maintain that the Koreans gave up NOTHING. If I'm about to buy do X, and then some terrorist says he'll kill 19 Canadians unless I do X I don't see it as a concession on my part to do the thing I was right about to do anyway. If anything, it would be a capitulation to change my plans based upon the actions of terrorists. So, let the terrorists spin away. They were going to do that whatever I did. I'm going to stick to the plan I had before the terrorists tried to intervene, and at least 19 civilians will be saved.
As for the missionary concession, I just figure that if the agreement was that "South Korea suspend missionary work" that that implies that the government would suspend any missionary work they were doing, which my guess was none. Now SOUTH KOREANS were doing missionary work for Church groups, but I don't think the Korean government necessarily has the power, nor the inclination, to put a halt to that (although, the article is vague, so if you know otherwise, let me know).
I really do think these monsters gave up their hostages for essentially nothing.
Also, I am certainly willing to fight for principles. It's just that my impression is that giving up essentially NOTHING to a group of terrorists in order to win the lives of 19 people is principled. I don't think we should negotiate with terrorists, but if the terrorists are willing to capitulate in return for things we were already going to do, I don't see why we should change our plans and refuse to accomodate them. Especially if it saves lives.