Commentary Magazine


Rescue or Ransom? Obama Made Right Call.

This past weekend’s Navy SEAL mission to rescue Luke Somers, an American held by al-Qaeda in Yemen, ended in tragedy when the terrorists holding the photojournalist killed him and his cellmate, South African Pierre Korkie, before they could be rescued. Like all military disasters, the attempt is subject to second-guessing about the risks that were taken. But adding to the anguish of this failure is the revelation that, unbeknownst to the U.S., a South African charity had already negotiated a ransom for Korkie and he was supposed to be released the day after the attempt to free him took place. This opens up President Obama, who personally ordered the mission, as well as the U.S. policy of no negotiations or ransoms for American hostages, to criticism. But as unfortunate as these events may be, the president was right.

This is not the first time that U.S. policy has been called into question by the outcome of a terrorist kidnapping. Back in September, the family of James Foley, an American who was murdered by his ISIS captors after the U.S. refused to ransom him, criticized the government for not only not saving their son but also for their attempts to prevent them from negotiating a ransom. As far as the Foleys were concerned, the Obama administration had sacrificed their loved one in order to make a political point. The fact that earlier in the year, the same government had negotiated with the Taliban for the freedom of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. solider who had been captured under suspicious circumstances, added hypocrisy to the charges.

But as much as the anguish of the Foleys and the Korkie family is understandable, the president’s decision to choose rescue rather than ransom was entirely correct.

Rather than approach this sad outcome as a human-interest story in which an uncaring government let innocents die to prove a point, our focus should remain on the fact that the West is engaged in a war with Islamist terrorists. Kidnapping is a major source of income for both ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates. These groups profit handsomely from trades for Western hostages and use the funds they acquire to not only kidnap more victims but to strengthen their ability to threaten vital Western interests. Simply put, without the sums they have extracted from European governments in exchange for their citizens, ISIS would not currently be in possession of much of Syria and Iraq.

Unfortunately, the problem with ransoms is not limited to the aid the transactions give to the terrorists. By not coordinating with Western governments, the efforts of groups like the Gift of the Givers charity—the organization that was working for Korkie’s release—make it difficult, if not impossible for the U.S. military to avoid operations that might interfere with a hostage’s release. Instead of castigating the United States for a rescue operation that went wrong, those who, even for altruistic reasons, conduct negotiations that aid the terrorists are ultimately to blame.

The war against Islamist terrorism has dragged on for more than a decade and no end is in sight. Part of the reason for that lies in the inherent difficulties in fighting a movement that can be an elusive if deadly target. Part of it also stems from foolish decisions by the Obama administration that weakened America’s position in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. But those problems notwithstanding, the president and his foreign-policy team cannot be credibly accused of indifference to the lives of Western hostages. Though the administration’s desire to abandon the Middle East and to move to détente with dangerous Iran is a colossal blunder, their commitment to fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda is clear. Those who will blame the president for the deaths of Somers and Korkie need to remember that it is the terrorists who bear all of the responsibility for what happened, not an administration that did the right thing and refused to pay ransoms.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

3 Responses to “Rescue or Ransom? Obama Made Right Call.”

  1. MICHAEL COWAN says:

    The only way to protect Americans in today’s insane world is to exact severe retribution – SEVERE retribution – when Americans are messed with. Unfortunately, a preponderance of Americans don’t have the stomach for such activities. As a result, Americans will continue to suffer.


    Why wasn’t the pres aware of the negotiations of the South African charity? Decisions for them to be considered good decisions must first be informed decisions. Putatively, he does not attend intelligence briefings. Could it be not so much an intelligence failure, but a failure to be informed? Shame on the staff for not making certain the pres had all the facts. Shame on them. Perhaps everyone should be fired, and the pres could begin again, informed.


    It is not a matter of second guessing Obama on a valiant effort whose failure was not his fault. And the no ransom, no negotiation decision, which predates the current administration, was certainly properly within the president’s purview.

    But why was it up to the president of the United States to decide on a hostage situation in far away Yemen, how and when and whether to act? He is a politician and lawyer; where did he acquire the experience, expertise and know-how to micromanage rescues from terrorists?

    When a city has a hostage situation, a special police team with rehearsed procedures, and under a select commander, take charge. The mayor, even the police commissioner stand aside.

    That a politician in the WH presumed to take the helm and decide the fate of two men in a storm in uncharted seas thousands of miles away, was reckless and foolhardy. What possessed him?

    As always, politics and vanity possessed him, the need to burnish his image and reputation. He wanted center stage and direct credit for saving those men. (Whereas he knew, failure would not tarnish him.)

    In the OBL dénouement, he passed up the simplest and best solution, obliterating the compound with two missiles from a stealth plane. Instead he risked the lives of 24 SEALs, friction with the Pakis and the loss of a top secret helicopter. All for the heroics and immediate political credit for a sensational feat, rather than the slow rewards from an innocuous disappearance.

    If this were 5 June 1944 Obama, not Ike, would be deciding whether to risk the weather to launch the invasion.

    A president is supposed to serve the nation, not himself, to rise above politics and above his own gratification. Obama started out lofty but descends ever lower.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.