Are The AQ “Euro-Plots” About Hostage-Taking?

Via the indispensable Leah Farrall, from Der Speigel:

“I have information that I consider to be reliable, according to which al-Qaida in Waziristan is training how to carry out multiple parallel hostage takings in order to enforce the release of a prisoner,” Benotman says.

Benotman believes that the alleged plans for attacks on European targets that authorities have been warning about in recent weeks are real. He says the plan consists of storming buildings in Germany, France and Britain at the same time and holding the people inside hostage with the aim of forcing the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11 who is now sitting in jail in the United States awaiting trial for the attacks.

Wouldn’t that be a NATO meeting to listen in on?…I’m not sure that the alliance could service more than a few hours of televised hostage-killing.

10 thoughts on “Are The AQ “Euro-Plots” About Hostage-Taking?”

  1. You know, Marc, I’d like to ask you why you conjecture – even partly in jest – that the alliance would fracture in that event. I’d like to posit that the reason is that the various allies would find themselves in a modified prisoner’s dilemma. Each of them would have to evaluate the probability that Obama would, at the end of the day, release KSM, thereby making the sacrifice of their particular hostage a pointless sacrifice.

    What would you wager that Obama would stand firm? Your career? I doubt it.

  2. Phil, I think that not only would Obama’s resolve be doubtful, but so would that of much of the NATO leadership.

    Marc

  3. Every serious foreign policy tradition in the Democratic tradition– and therefore every advisor he has– demands the preservation of NATO by any means necessary.

    The Democratic party is inherently Atlanticist, for one thing. It’s also inherently respectful of alliance structures. If Obama were to be seen as the guy who let NATO fracture, he might actually lose his base voters. It’s right up there on the list with being the guy who lets Iran cook off a nuke (without immediate and devastating military response) on the list of irrecoverable foreign policy mistakes.

    I conjecture that he would do everything in his power– including things we might not like to see him do– in order to preserve the alliance.

  4. Why has AQ not thought of this before?

    Surely they don’t think that the devastating hostage crises of the 70s and 80s were counter-productive. Not when the Palestinians are the darlings of the international left, a former Revolutionary Guard thug is the president of Iran, and Hisb’allah is a “charity organization”.

    Are they stupid? Has some leader, or some powerful backer, forbidden this tactic for some reason?

  5. Phil,

    I think we’re imagining entirely different scenarios, which is largely my fault.

    What I’m imagining is the NATO governments of (in this scenario) France, Germany and Britain pressuring the United States to trade prisoners for hostages, effectively pressuring the United States to capitulate.

    Making no claims about the likelihood of that scenario, I claim only that that scenario is almost a no-win situation: Capitulate and (as you say) NATO begins to unravel. Fail to capitulate, and at the very least there’s been a serious wedge into the alliance. That’s a key element of a good strategy, or in this case, stratagem: All options are painful, all calculations are lossy.

    But this hinges on NATO allies pushing for capitulation, which simply might not happen. I’d prefer to think better of the British, German, and French leaders. And frankly I’d like to think that Obama could rally them even if they disappoint.

Leave a Reply to Phil Smith Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.