Start Talking and Save the Hostages : Reagan, Not Bureaucrats, Must Act Now and Get Them Home

With all of the political turmoil and bureaucratic infighting in Washington, the plight of the American hostages in Lebanon has been lost as a humanitarian issue in the list of political priorities.

At the time of my kidnaping, my family and concerned Americans became absolutely frustrated with the inability of the State Department to come forward with any information or to respond with positive action. The stories of the ineptness of he bureaucrats told to me by my sons and the families of other hostages has filled me with justifiable anger.

President Reagan probably became greatly frustrated by the inability of the State Department leadership to respond positively to the hostage crisis in 1984, ’85 and ’86. This frustration may have led to the expanded role of the National Security Council and, unfortunately, to the grave constitutional questions of the Iran- contra affair.

The current political controversy surrounding the Iran-contra issue has resulted in the responsibility for the hostage problem once again being returned to the State Department. Historically, the department has been ineffective in dealing with Lebanese terrorists, with little or nothing accomplished in the last four years. One does not hear praises of their efforts from the families of William Buckley and Peter Kilburn. Does anyone really believe that the department now possesses some new insight and courage?

With the present absence of an action plan in the State Department, the hostages have only an outside chance of freedom in the near future. How much more can Terry Anderson and Tom Sutherland take after being held for nearly 2 1/2 years under the most horrible conditions? Hostages don’t go home at night, but Secretary of State George P. Shultz and his “ambassador for counterterrorism,” H. Paul Bremer III, do.

Bureaucrats, like termites, avoid light and exposure at all costs. The spotlight of public inquiry needs to be placed on them.

I trust that the next time Shultz offers his resignation, Nancy (Reagan) will accept it. Other top-level bureaucrats should be treated for their inexperience and pseudo-intellectualism by reassignment to nice warm places for rehabilitation. The preoccupation of the senior staff with avoiding any possibility of mistakes that could deter career advancement seems to have greater priority than the lives of the hostages. We have just cause to be madder than hell at them. The safe way is the most dangerous way for the hostages.

International terrorism is not going to disappear with statements of “no deals for hostages.” That policy has never worked, and it never will. We are confronted by a foreign culture that has successfully used hostages for personal and political purposes for thousands of years. The only people who respond to the “no deal” comments are the families and friends of the hostages. Their response is one of pain. Every time the official comment is made, it is another kick in the stomachs of the hostage families. The families are listening, but the terrorists are not.

I am not critical of President Reagan, but I sure am of his appointees whose lack of an immediate action plan might cause greater damage to the President than the Iran-contra affair.

As a direct result of the Iran-contra debate, creative and resourceful individuals in the State Department and other agencies have been replaced, forced into silence or otherwise controlled by excessively cautious men. The new leadership represents the same policy-makers who believed that our Marines in Lebanon should carry unloaded weapons while on duty. These same men believed that our Marines protecting our embassies in Latin America should not carry weapons for self-protection while off duty. These are now the men responsible for saving the lives of the American hostages and protecting the 5 million Americans who travel overseas yearly.

Talking with terrorists is not the same as making concessions to them. It is standard law-enforcement procedure to talk with kidnapers. The obvious reason is to keep the victims alive and to secure their safe early release while at the same time apprehending the criminals. By making the problem of the American hostages a matter of principle in our policy against international terrorism, we have made it a political issue that can be resolved only by political means.

Kidnaping is a criminal act that should be acted on by law-enforcement and/or military authorities using proven anti-terrorist methods and not politically influenced bureaucrats who are more concerned about their own personal success and image than the release of the hostages.

The very best thing that could happen to further the goals of the bureaucrats would be for all the hostages to be killed by the kidnapers. Does the American public want that?

Islamic Jihad has threatened to torture its hostages if video tapes showing the condition of their associates being held in Kuwait are not released by a specified deadline. Why? Very simple. Imad Mughiyya, the military leader of Islamic Jihad, wants assurances that his brother-in-law is alive. When I was a hostage, Islamic Jihad told me of the mistreatment of the prisoners in Kuwait. If you are familiar with the Middle East, you know that prison is no place for a vacation. Pressuring the government of Kuwait to release such a tape should not be construed as “making a deal” with the terrorists. The prisoners in Kuwait are permitted to have family visits, but the relatives have been afraid to do so.

A neutral solution would be to ask the International Red Cross or Amnesty International to intervene. That would be the humanitarian thing to do. The demand by Islamic Jihad is not for the release of the terrorists but for information regarding their health. How can we expect to know the condition of the American hostages if we don’t reciprocate? The kidnapers can be vicious, and I know that from personal experience. After what Anderson and Sutherland have been through, they just don’t need any more pain! I am sure that if senior State Department officials’ education included being beaten with a rubber hose, they would have a greater sense of urgency in getting our people home.

The hostage clock is still running, with no end in sight. The roll call reads sadly: Anderson, Sutherland, Joseph J. Cicippio, Frank H. Reed, Edward A. Tracy, Robert Polhill, Alann Steen and Jesse Turner--hostages. Buckley and Kilburn--dead. Who is next? Certainly not a top-level bureaucrat.

Mr. President, please act now to save the lives of our American hostages. Don’t let your subordinates distort your honorable place in history.