Negotiation With Terrorists

Negotiation between the United States and other countries, organizations or even terrorists, often cause more harm. By negotiating with others, the United States is put into more harm than before. Although there may be a slight gain for one side, it may end up being a greater gain for the other side. These negotiations are often only benefiting the terrorists with unfair trades and their gain in having the upperhand. By paying ransoms and negotiating, the US is weakening its power and control over the terrorist, making the US seem even more weak and vulnerable than before.

One reason why the U.S. should not negotiate with terrorists the trades are often not fair or equal, as John Bolton said “it is despicable...to equate a US service member with terrorist criminals” (Bolton 2). The trades the occur are not equal or “like for like” (Bolton 2) and this creates a disadvantage for the US, especially during negotiation for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. In exchange for the sergeants release after five years of captivity, “five high-ranking, hard-core terrorists” (Bolton 1). Because the US had participated in the unfair exchange, the release of those five high ranking terrorists probably have put the US at a greater disadvantage than …show more content…
Vicki Huddleston written an article of how paying ransoms eventually had lead to more violence and the money they had paid with had funded the weapons and troops. Essentially, the money that the US pays ransoms with can be used in a way that can ultimately hurt them back. By paying ransoms and negotiating with terrorists, the US is funding their war, putting the US back with a “substantial setback for Americans” (Bolton 1). To link with the previous argument, terrorists will kidnap or hold people captive more if there is a prize for them. The ransom money paid to the terrorists, help to fund their war, putting the US at a