We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Although the U.S. has repeated this mantra for years when dealing with hostage situations, the policy’s effectiveness has come into question recently.
American officials have had much experience giving trades and bribes to save civilian lives, yet they refuse to change their one cemented policy: They do not negotiate with terrorists.
Just in 2014, the U.S. has had to deal with terrorists a number of times, the most high profile cases being once with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan and now with the two journalists who were captured by the Islamic State. The government’s approach was radically different for each case.
Whereas the government managed to negotiate to save Bergdahl’s life by releasing several prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, they were not able nor willing to negotiate for the release of the journalists, resulting in their gruesome beheadings, which were made public on YouTube.
So, the question must be posed: Should the United States change its hardfast policy?
There is no obvious, clean answer. One thing seems rational, though: It’s smart to keep negotiations as an option, so that when faced with a difficult situation, the government has plenty of paths to explore.
It is true that negotiating can give the impression that the United States is weak, but in fact, leaving the option open eliminates some of the desperation of a situation, allowing for the government to avoid making rash decisions because they are under pressure.
In the last month, there have been two beheadings, which is more than can be considered acceptable. Sadly, these deaths could have been avoided.
Granted, the U.S. government should be applauded for putting forward a principled stance, but with its long history of negotiating with repressive regimes, this message is tarnished with hypocrisy.
Instances of negotiations have spanned the decades, going from the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan presidency to the cases of Mike Rogers and Peter Moore during George W. Bush’s time. Despite America’s unmovable outlook, a major reason terrorists keep coming back with offers of negotiations is that there have been so many occurrences where deals and trades have been cut.
There are some problems that negotiating with terrorist groups could lead to, however. Negotiating for appeasement could easily be done accidentally, and will not benefit the U.S. or its people. For example, the World War resulted when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain attempted to appease Hitler. Giving in to such dangerous people gives them power over us, and should not be considered as a solution.
Unlike the U.S., European countries have a policy of negotiating for every single hostage, leading to these ransoms that essentially fund terrorist groups. This is clearly a problem in the long term, as a better funded group can impact its target more thoroughly; in the short term, though, it saves the lives and allows for more flexibility in dealing with such complicated issues.
Of course, going soft on terrorism is not ideal. What we are suggesting is that the United States merely keep the option of negotiating open.
The United States has certain assets that Europe does not, namely, our large and powerful armed forces. The U.S. is actively combating terrorism, so there should be no harm in negotiating, saving the hostage, and then finding a way to defeat the terrorist group in the long run. In President Obama’s speech concerning the recent beheadings, he said in no unclear terms that he would utilize the U.S. army to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIL.
Why, then, did he not save the lives of two innocent journalists and then enact this plan?
This is not a permanent solution to this problem, as the circumstances surrounding it are ever changing and complex, but it would have saved two lives in the last month and it has the potential to save other lives in the future.
For that reason, the mantra should be altered slightly.
We are willing to negotiate with terrorists if circumstances dictate that we do so.
