How Did Algeria Screw Up Its Hostage Crisis So Badly?

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/how-did-algeria-screw-up-its-hostage-crisis-so-badly/267335/



Three days into Algeria's hostage crisis, 100 of the 132 foreign workers held at the besieged In Amenas gas plant have been freed -- but only after a military operation Thursday that reportedly left over 30 hostages and more than a dozen captors dead. By any objective standard, the offensive was a failure: the militants neither gave up, nor were they completely eliminated. And instead of being rescued, an unconfirmed number of hostages wound up getting killed as a direct result of Algeria's actions.

In the wake of the assault, governments around the world have been heaping on the criticism . After all that's happened, it's hard not to wonder what went wrong. How could Algerian forces have handled the crisis so poorly?

One theory is that Algeria's military simply isn't equipped for hostage-rescue situations. For The Atlantic's sister site, Quartz, Steve LeVine writes that while Algerian special operations forces are disciplined and well-trained, their "action-driven" history has given rise to a shoot-first, talk-later mentality. Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former terror-finance analyst for the U.S. Treasury, traces that attitude to Algeria's long experience battling Islamist militants.

"They've gotten their nose bloodied," Schanzer said of the special operations forces. "They've often been the target of these jihadist attacks. But they've also been able to deliver debilitating blows to the organization as it's morphed and evolved over time."

[dipsydoodle]

1. Broadly speaking Algeria doesn't attempt hostage rescue

They consider hostages to be "good as dead" and their sole intent is to the kill the hostage takers to help prevent further re-occurence by the same people. They do not negotiate period.

The fact remains that the UK hostages on their way back to the UK were full of praise for the operation.

[xchrom]

2. there seems to be something 'personal' in their dealings

with islamist insurgents.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Long history

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:57 AM - Edit history (1)

and that's why. I think that's particularly so with this guy whose nick name is Mr Marlboro - he runs his own splinter group in Algeria. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101653368

see also

Algerian reaction to raid rooted in history.

But while many details of how events at the In Amenas plant have unfolded remain unclear, Algeria's decision to deal with the kidnappers forcefully and unilaterally fits with a deeply-entrenched and uncompromising approach to counter-terrorism.

"I'd be surprised if they'd reacted any other way," said Jon Marks, an Algeria analyst and head of the Cross-border Information consultancy.

"From the Algerian point of view the attack… was an affront to the prestige of the Algerian military which is a very central part of the Algerian value system."

The military is still seen as the ultimate arbiter of power in Algeria, and has never been placed fully under civilian control.

The army, and the governments it supports, derive much of their legitimacy from largely winning the military battle against Islamist insurgents in the 1990s, during a vicious conflict that left as many as 150,000 people dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21088301

[xchrom]

6. yeah -- i've been following that.

i don't think we can draw much out of this for a larger look.

this seems more about internal relations in algeria.

[sendero]

3. And frankly I agree with ..

.. the Algerians' approach. Calling this a failure is ludicrous, all hostages dead would have been a failure.

These guys made a simple calculus, one I agree with. Negotiate with these fuckers and you will be dealing with a hostage situation per month into infinity.

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. They should have

taken advice and help from other countries. Others have much more experience in rescue such as it is. That is a failure.
in addition, once you decide on a rescue, you damn well better keep going to the bitter end. You have to have enough asserts to pour in to end it and not leave another hostage situation. Huge failure!
I don't know if they had the best intel either. More scoping out of the situation by a lot of sophisticated means might have given them a better idea of who was where. Other countries could have helped with that.
politically they may have helped the US and others by taking it on. Now others an't claim that western powers led the way. that is cold comfort to those held hostage and their loved ones.

[sendero]

8. I think..

... that as usual Americans and Europeans think they know best about everything. The word is that they had to act quickly for some reason and trying to get some kind of consensus from several countries would have resulted in gridlock.

I'm afraid we are simply not going to agree on this. Whatever possible better scenarios that could have evolved are just speculation. It is THEIR COUNTRY and they wanted to send a strong message to the extremists involved and I think they succeeded.

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. I don't think it takes a genius

to at least bring in advisors and people who have experience in rescues. If their goal was to blow hell out of the extremists with little regard for the hostages, then they partly succeeded.

I'll stand by what I said. You don't start a rescue unless you are going to finish it. You can defend them all you want, but that is a basic fact. Any excuse about underestimating them won't fly. They put those hostages in double jeopardy as well as endangering their own forces more by losing any edge by surprise.

They fucked this up in many ways.

[malaise]

4. That simple

The army was out to kill the hostage takers by any means necessary