Reaction to Taliban kidnapping of Korean aid workers?

Dear Small Wars Journal,

I would appreciate your reaction to YONHAP NEWS: "Afghanistan kidnappings keep Korean missionaries from going overseas".

My gut reaction is that the removal of humanitarian people and organizations from places like Afghanistan and Iraq is devastating to the larger political process because these entities - perhaps more than our military civil affairs and government-based aid/development orgs - embody the positive (progressive) promise of the Western relationship in its most interactive form.

Further, I believe their physical introduction, relationship-building, and then removal under threat has been more damaging to our mission, demoralizing to the local population, and empowering to the insurgents than if they had been absent from the beginning. The tactic of targeting "non-combatants" has been repeatedly validated, and more significantly, I worry that the gap left by the removal of aid groups has severely undermined the full-spectrum interactions necessary to bring about the so-called "political" solution in the peace-building process.

However, even as a recent Poli Sci - IR graduate (Columbia '07), I have heard very little about the effect of the removal of aid groups on the COIN and peace-building missions. I hope to read expert analysis from SWJ to help me better understand the impact. Thank you.

Eric Chen

Sup. Welcome. Good to see a familiar face.

Some facets of your topic have been discussed, for example:

Medical situation in Iraq Perhaps another member could recall other related threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmx1

Sup. Welcome. Good to see a familiar face.

Some facets of your topic have been discussed, for example:

Medical situation in Iraq Perhaps another member could recall other related threads.

---

Hey LT.

Coincidentally, the first event that caused me to question the impact of NGO retreat was medical related. In 2004, I read the statement from Doctors Without Borders justifying the cut-off of their Iraq mission, and it just struck me at the time that when the Iraqi people needed their help the most, MSF decided to leave the Iraqis to the mercy of the killers. I wondered who would pick up their slack on the ground and the broader political impact of Western NGOs that enter with lofty promises, gain the people's trust, but then abandon them.

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Chen

Dear Small Wars Journal,

I would appreciate your reaction to YONHAP NEWS: "Afghanistan kidnappings keep Korean missionaries from going overseas".

My gut reaction is that the removal of humanitarian people and organizations from places like Afghanistan and Iraq is devastating to the larger political process because these entities - perhaps more than our military civil affairs and government-based aid/development orgs - embody the positive (progressive) promise of the Western relationship in its most interactive form.

---

I wonder just how "devastating" this really is, given how genuinely small most NGO aid operations are, especially in GWOT-related conflict zones. Removal of such NGOs would undoubtedly be devastating from a humanitarian standpoint in places like Eastern and Central Africa, but folks on the ground like LTC Odom can certainly point to instances where they often did just as much harm as good. Moreover, I question exactly how much of a real IO boost they provide in GWOT-related areas considering that my own limited experience of work with such organizations is that their circle of contact with native populations is actually rather small (outside of relief camp-style operations in Africa).

Quote:

---

Further, I believe their physical introduction, relationship-building, and then removal under threat has been more damaging to our mission, demoralizing to the local population, and empowering to the insurgents than if they had been absent from the beginning. The tactic of targeting "non-combatants" has been repeatedly validated, and more significantly, I worry that the gap left by the removal of aid groups has severely undermined the full-spectrum interactions necessary to bring about the so-called "political" solution in the peace-building process.

However, even as a recent Poli Sci - IR graduate (Columbia '07), I have heard very little about the effect of the removal of aid groups on the COIN and peace-building missions. I hope to read expert analysis from SWJ to help me better understand the impact. Thank you.

Eric Chen

---

I think you are correct that insurgents definitely get a short-term publicity boost in the Western media, and probably a longer-term IO boost among the local population when they successfully kidnap and kill Westerners, NGO or not. Whether or not the "full spectrum interactions" you speak of really help towards creating political momentum in resolving conflicts is more questionable. NGOs have their place in alleviating human suffering, but rarely do they actually influence the political process within countries --- and when they do, it is not always to the good. Witness, for example, the embarassment brought on Karzai by this past incident involving Korean missionaries. I can't imagine the fact that this particular group sang Christian hymns and held a service inside an Afghan mosque makes Kabul very happy either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

I wonder just how "devastating" this really is, given how genuinely small most NGO aid operations are, especially in GWOT-related conflict zones ... I think you are correct that insurgents definitely get a short-term publicity boost in the Western media, and probably a longer-term IO boost among the local population when they successfully kidnap and kill Westerners, NGO or not.

---

Having managed secuity operations for an NGO in Iraq I can tell you the impact that an abduction and killing such as these has a greater impact on the NGOs and the community targets of the action than what it does to the political process of any situation. Like Tequila said the areas of Africa where camps are being run (Chad, Uganda, DRC, Sudan, etc) are very different operations than what is happening in Afghanistan. Afghanistans activities, funded by the US, NATO, EU and various smaller donor states and clients have different impacts and mandates... the one unifying factor is that they generally tend to leave areas where they are at risk very quickly. Most groups have security managers now and require that the environment be semi-permissiable and not targeting NGOs before they continue operations.

In Iraq the NGOs that were immediate crisis agencies didn't particularly want to be there and as soon as they saw a reason to leave (the Aug 2003 assassination of Sheik Hakim) they left with the UN's withdrawal and cited security as the reason. Even big groups with lots of resources, like CARE, evacuated Iraq early-on once they were targeted. ... other US funded reconstruction agencies remained under the security umbrella of USAID. Most of these NGOs are not traditional NGOs but new entities working directly for the USG.

In Afghanistan the security environment is semi-permissiable and the risks manageable ... unless the NGO community starts to believe that they are now the easiest target set on the menu and they leave then things will start to impact the poltical spectrum.

Quote:

---

[loss of NGOs is] devastating to the larger political process because these entities ... embody the positive (progressive) promise of the Western relationship in its most interactive form

---

Will the loss of NGOs impact the community's relationship? Most likely not ... these people have lived through far worst with far less and their expectations for positive promises of a Western relationship is not very high ... however we did bring back Heroin profits! I believe most think of all foreigners,missionaries or not, as associated with the US effort. On the other hand NGOs fleeing would be a clear victory in influence operations and a major propaganda win for the Taliban/AQ. They need everyone to think that 80% of the country is NOT stable.

Even if this abduction was a bid by a very small regional Taliban unit its strategic impact on the US, GoA and the ROK is enormous ( a Taliban version of the 'Strategic Emir'?).

The narrative of the Talibs making lots of 'foreign devils' (NGOs) leave (through murder, abduction, or no matter how) is so simple it will play well in regional propaganda and help in recruiting no matter how untrue("Those Christians were teaching girls to read the Bible!")

NGOs don't factor enemy propaganda strategy into their security decisions and will generally leave as soon as they feel threatened but, once they do expect dramatic descriptions of risk ... that will assist those enemy IO efforts thorough our own media. Other NGOs will thnk twice about coming ... maybe even think its not worth it.

The Korean hostages are, like the many other victims of terrorist/insurgent political goals (the Red Cross staff murders iand the rape/abduction & murder of British aid workers in Chechnya, the masascre of American nuns in El Salvador, the 76 westerners abducted in lebanon, the murder of three US farmers rights activists in Colombia), simply the right kind of foreigners in the wrong place and time. Their human tragedy is a politcal pawn in a big game but the loss of those pawns definately impact us more than the locals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Chen

Hey LT.

Coincidentally, the first event that caused me to question the impact of NGO retreat was medical related. In 2004, I read the statement from Doctors Without Borders justifying the cut-off of their Iraq mission, and it just struck me at the time that when the Iraqi people needed their help the most, MSF decided to leave the Iraqis to the mercy of the killers. I wondered who would pick up their slack on the ground and the broader political impact of Western NGOs that enter with lofty promises, gain the people's trust, but then abandon them.

Eric

---

Well, we never know. For, the full scope of certain ONG’s mission are not necessarily obvious to everyone.