Do you have any questions?


Do you have
any questions?

Why the United States Should Never Negotiate with Terrorists

Buy custom Why the United States Should Never Negotiate with Terrorists essay

Buy custom Why the United States Should Never Negotiate with Terrorists essay

For decades, it has been a venerated policy of the United States’ government not to negotiate with terrorists. The recent barbaric killing of an American journalist James Foley by the ISIS (Islamic State) terrorists made Americans rethink their position and argue for setting aside the policy and negotiate for the life of the American citizens (Ackerman para 1). However, the value of this mission must always outweigh the value of the short-term outcomes. In the same context, the move by the President Obama’s administration to swop captive Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for the release of five Taliban terrorists exposed each American to danger in the sense that a negative message had been broadcasted. That is, terrorists can capture any American citizen and then negotiate for the release of imprisoned terrorists. In this respect, this essay outlines the reasons why the United States’ government should not negotiate with terrorists.

Live Chat

Terrorists are groups of people who disagree on the fundamental idea that peaceful and lasting agreement is possible. They will kill if their terms are not met. Their radical perspectives make them dangerous and would always be a threat to the constitutional rights and the life of ordinary people. Logic and reason are the basis for the policy, not opinions, misinterpreted scriptures, or superstition. Therefore, coexistence or negotiation with terrorists should not be debated. As the battlefield tends to change with terrorists disrespecting the rules of engagement, the U.S military servicemen risk ther life to protect the country with the knowledge that their life is on the line. In other words, the military servicemen are enlisted knowing that in the battlefield they are likely to face terrorists rather than uniformed military enemies.

Order now

Typically, the United States military will do anything humanly to ensure that no American combatant is left behind in the battlefield. This principle of warfare was once easy to understand, even in the scenarios where it was hard to execute, especially in the war between uniformed soldiers representing their warring states. However, the rule does not apply to warfare that involves global enemies without uniforms of warring states and are avowed terrorists. This scenario is much similar in Iraq where, after the disposition of Saddam Hussein, the mission changed to a war with various terrorist groups rather than the Iraqi government. By negotiating with terrorists, the state allows capturing Americans. In this end, the rest of America pays the price of an executive that is flexible on foreign policy and rigid on domestic policy.

The other reason of sticking to this policy is avoiding publicity or recognition of the terrorists in public. If terrorists were successful in the negotiations, which might be in line with their cause, then potential terrorists would be motivated by the perception that terrorism is effective in forwarding their demands. The position for no-negotiation is a strong deterrent to taking hostages. When terrorists realize that the United States’ government will not give in to thheir demands, conceivably they will limit the number of hostages. However, the no-negotiation policy might not work for terrorists who abduct Americans and kill them to make a statement. For example, ISIS terrorists have carried out executions of foreigners, including beheading American journalist James Foley, as part of their course to establish an Islamic State that stretches from Syria to Iraq (Gollom para 1). In reference to the scenarios where negotiations with terrorist have led to short-term gains, the long-term impact calls for total no-negotiation, because the rest of the country pays the cost. For example, terrorists would probably kill hostages even after their demands are met. When terrorist are given their demands, they will certainly keep committing the same crimes and comeback for more.

In conclusion, it is evident that trading supposedly high-valued terrorists for the United States’ military service, members or contractors may encourage other radical individuals or groups with ill objective to capture more American military service members from the battlefield and hold them for trade. In the worst-case scenario, civilians and diplomats might fall prey to the same group. In summary, negotiating with terrorist factions and exchanging imprisoned terrorists for the captured Americans sets precedence for future kidnappings. In addition, this places any foreigner at a higher risk in the area of terrorist activities. Prisoner exchanges should be pre-planned or integral components of only the broader peace efforts not depending on any terrorist pressure.

Buy custom Why the United States Should Never Negotiate with Terrorists essay

Related essays

Your request should consist of 5 char min.

Get 15% off your first custom essay order.

Order now

from $12.99/PAGE

Online - please click here to chat
Tell a friend