

In this undated photo provided by the Kassig Family, Peter Kassig, is shown with a truck loaded with supplies. The Islamic State group released a graphic video on Sunday, Nov. 16, 2014, in which a black-clad militant claimed to have beheaded U.S. aid worker Peter Kassig, who was providing medical aid to Syrians fleeing the civil war when he was captured inside Syria on Oct. 1, 2013. His friends say he converted to Islam in captivity and took the first name Abdul-Rahman. (AP Photo/Courtesy Kassig Family)

This weekend's beheading of Abdul-Rahman Kassig, a U.S. aid worker previously known as Peter Kassig, marked the fifth killing of a foreigner to be filmed and released by the Islamic State. So far, the extremist Islamist group has killed three American citizens and two British citizens in this manner. There is one remaining Western hostage, an American woman.

The nationality of those killed is important. While these U.S. and British citizens were killed, those of other nationalities have been released by the Islamic State. The New York Times has reported that citizens from Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Peru, and Sweden are believed to have been freed after ransoms were paid. While most countries agree, in theory, to not pay money to kidnappers, many covertly do.

The United States and Britain do not. And the logic that drives that strategy is being called into question by the brutality of the Islamic State.

On Monday, Shane Harris of the Daily Beast reported that the White House may reevaluate its policy on ransoms. In particular, the White House will review the opposition the U.S. government has shown to families paying ransoms to kidnappers. In the past, Washington has refused to facilitate these payments, and the families of both James Foley and Steven Sotloff -- two American journalists killed by the Islamic State -- claimed that they were threatened with prosecution by White House counterterrorism officials if they raised money and paid a ransom privately.



In this handout image made available by the photographer, American journalist Steven Sotloff (Center with black helmet) talks to Libyan rebels on the al-Dafniya front line, 25 km west of Misurata on June 02, 2011 in Misurata, Libya. (Photo by Etienne de Malglaive via Getty Images)

This seems to be an acknowledgement that U.S. policy on paying ransoms is flawed, but it brings up a worrying question: What would be better?

At its core, the U.S. logic on ransoms boils down to two key factors. First, the idea that paying ransoms gives kidnappers an incentive to kidnap and may compel them to target people of a certain nationality. There's some evidence that this may be true: The French government is believed to be one of the most willing to pay ransoms and is reported to have paid out tens of millions of dollars over the past few years, and there were more French hostages around the world than any other nationality.

Then there's a second, more direct problem. These kidnappers are often extremist groups with violent agendas in opposition to U.S. foreign policy aims. By giving them a substantial amount of money, you may be helping them to get closer to achieving those aims. In the case of the Islamic State, which the United States is now directly fighting, it would be actively aiding the enemy.

The United States has articulated this logic again and again, often criticizing other nations that do pay kidnappers. "Ransom payments lead to future kidnappings, and future kidnappings lead to additional ransom payments. And it all builds the capacity of terrorist organizations to conduct attacks," David Cohen, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department, said at London's Chatham House in 2012. "We must find a way to break the cycle. Refusing to pay ransoms or to make other concessions to terrorists is, clearly, the surest way to break the cycle, because if kidnappers consistently fail to get what they want, they will have a strong incentive to stop taking hostages in the first place."

Now that three American hostages have been killed by the Islamic State, and another lies in the balance, that logic is starting to look absurd. The widespread knowledge that America does not pay ransoms did not stop Foley, Sotloff or Kassig from being kidnapped, and it certainly didn't stop them from being killed.



In this November 2012, file photo, posted on the website freejamesfoley.org, shows American journalist James Foley while covering the civil war in Aleppo, Syria. (AP Photo/freejamesfoley.org, Nicole Tung, File)

The graphic, public nature of their killings, and some reports of the wild ransoms being put forward (kidnappers reportedly demanded a $132 million fee for Foley's release) suggest this wasn't all about the money. It's possible that this is partly because the Islamic State may not really need the cash: The U.S. Treasury estimates that the group was earning around $1 million a day through oil sales until recently, an impressive sum by any standard. But it may also be that the message sent by the slayings is worth more to the Islamic State than the money they might have received.

What other option is there for the U.S. government, other than paying or facilitating the payment of huge sums of money? One option sounds simple: Rescue them. This is far easier said than done. The U.S. government did try to rescue American hostages being held by the Islamic State in a daring secret raid earlier this year, but it failed. U.S. officials could also attempt to work out some kind of prisoner exchange deal, like they did with the Taliban in exchange for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. This method comes with its own risks and criticisms of course, and may not always be an option.

The White House's reassessment of ransom payments reflects the changing situation and narrowing opportunity in the wake of the Islamic State's brutality. If the U.S. government does begin to help families privately pay ransoms (still some way from European governments who covertly pay themselves), it's an acknowledgment that paying ransoms is a flawed strategy -- but that every other option in this situation is also flawed in some way.