The Abu Sayyaf, a terrorist group with links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, kidnapped American missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham in the southern Philippines 10 months ago. In order to secure their release, the United States government, through a third party, gave the terrorists $300,000 in ransom demands, an amount first reported to be as high as $3 million. The money was delivered before Easter Sunday, according to government officials, but the Burnhams have not yet been freed. The government believes the couple is still alive, and in Abu Sayyaf's custody. The Philippine government has aggressively combated the Muslim extremists with the support of American military advisors sent last year as part of the war of terrorism.
Prior American governments maintained a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Under the new policy, ransoms will be paid if doing so increases the odds of capturing terrorists and if the kidnappers could not benefit from the funds. But the terrorists, by the very nature of their craft, win after they've been paid, regardless of whether or not they actually use the money. Terrorism succeeds when the targets of the activity change their routines or habits based upon the terrorist's actions. By relenting to terrorists' demands, the government hands them a victory. Terrorists are the ultimate example of Pavlov's dogs - they exhibit a learned reaction to favorable stimuli and the reaction becomes hardwired.
Sept. 11 was a large-scale assault against American lives and interests. This kidnapping is a small-scale assault against two Americans. The response to Sept. 11, war, was proper and effective. The government did not fold under al Qaeda's pressure, and should not have paid the ransom to the Philippine government. As long as the kidnappers believed they could receive money for the Burnhams, their lives would be relatively secure. Now that the ransom is delivered, why would the kidnappers keep the missionaries alive? There are only two reasons why they haven't been handed over: to extract more money from the United States government or the couple is already dead, despite what military intelligence believes.
Paying the terrorists only encourages them to abduct more hostages, not fewer. Again, using the Pavlov analogy, Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda have learned the behavior of kidnapping Americans pays. No one seriously believes that it won't happen again. Abu Sayyaf has proven its brutality by beheading captives. The Pakistani extremists who brutally murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl won't be placated by capitulation. Al Qaeda brazenly proved their intractability on Sept. 11. Bin Laden has cells operating in 60 countries, including the United States. American citizens around the world and even at home are now in further danger of being abducted. Now that the terrorists have their money, why would they settle for $300,000? Or $1 million? Why not $5 million? The cost of capitulation will only escalate. Should the policy flip-flop again, how will the terrorists react? Just outright murder?
As the war in Afghanistan proved, terrorists must be dealt with from a position of strength. Those who commit crimes that spit in the face of even the most basic societal norms seek to exploit weaknesses in their intended victims. The only effective strategy is one of unambiguous engagement and confrontation. Terrorists, by virtue of their actions, do not respect life, not theirs or anyone else's. Groups like Abu Sayyaf understand only the language of force and the strength of arms. If the Burnhams, or future captives, are to be freed, it must be done so through rescues, not ransoms.
