Would the Military Pay 1 as Ransom for a Kidnapped Soldier?
When faced with the question of whether the military would pay a nominal ransom of 1 to free a kidnapped soldier, one must consider various factors deeply rooted in strategic, ethical, and practical dimensions.
Historical Precedents and Principles
From the early days of the United States, there has been a longstanding principle that money should not be used as a ransom. Thomas Jefferson famously declared, ldquo;We will spend millions of dollars for defense but not one penny for tribute.rdquo; This principle has been applied in various situations, such as the conflict with the Barbary Pirates, where purchasing peace through tribute was not an option.
Pragmatic Considerations
Seasoned soldiers know that kidnapping a fellow soldier is not a cheap or risk-free operation. The cost of a mission to rescue a soldier includes expenses in fuel, munitions, and most importantly, the opportunity cost and risks involved. A pragmatic commander would consider the operational feasibility and cost of a rescue mission as compared to the nominal value of the ransom.
Real-World Examples
Historically, the military has been more willing to pay a ransom when the political and public climate is ripe for it. For example, in February 2010, AAH (Asaib Ahl al-Haq) kidnapped an American civilian in Iraq named Issa T. Salomi. He was released in March 2010 in exchange for the release of four of AAHrsquo;s fighters. While the ransom was not explicitly stated, the liberation of an American citizen was still a significant outcome.
The case of Bowe Bergdahl in 2014 is another complex example. Reports suggested that the Pentagon had attempted to secure Bergdahlrsquo;s release by paying a ransom, but the Pentagon denied this claim. Instead, they claimed that intelligence was purchased that led to Bergdahlrsquo;s release. This situation highlights the grey areas where payment for information or rescue can be difficult to distinguish from a ransom.
Operational and Political Implications
From an operational standpoint, the cost of rescuing a soldier through a mission often outweighs the nominal value of a 1 ransom. However, the political implications of a ransom payment can be significant. In the post-9/11 era, the publicrsquo;s inclination to support military action may have shifted, making a ransom payment more palatable. In the early 2000s, however, public sentiment might have favored more extreme measures like military strikes.
The implications of a ransom payment are multifaceted and depend on the current domestic climate, the leadership in charge, and the prevailing public sentiment. In 2002, the appetite for direct military action might have been higher, whereas in a post-9/11 context, there might be a preference for alternative solutions.
Conclusion
There is no definitive answer to whether the military would pay 1 as ransom, as it depends on a myriad of factors including the current political climate and public opinion. From a practical perspective, a ransom payment might be more feasible than a high-cost rescue mission, but the political and ethical implications must also be considered. The military strategy always aims to weigh the immediate cost against the long-term consequences and risks involved.