y tries to achieve a political goal and it must be fought against. The U.S. must decipher a clear cut way to deal with terrorist acts instead of acting on individual situations in an unorganized way by either using military force or ignoring terrorist demands all together. This approach obviously does not work, as shown in the above in my Summary and Evaluation, and it is in the U.S. best interest to change the non-negotiation system, which includes violent revenge, into a system of peaceful negotiation. This change may seem drastic and complicated but it is actually very simple, the U.S. only has to follow a few short and concise rules when dealing with a terrorist event whether it is a hostage situation or a horrific bombing. To begin, one must first fully understand what terrorist negotiation means before they can attempt to apply it. When negotiating with a terrorist it is not like negotiating for a used car that is you are negotiating against your interests. To better explain the U.S. would rather there weren't terrorists at all even if we have a good way to deal with them. This form of negotiation is known as negotiation under duress. Now that the difference between negotiating and terrorist negotiating has been established three questions must now be answered. They are as follows: What do the terrorist parties say they want, what do they really want, and what are they willing to settle for. These questions must be answered in order for the negotiation process to move forward in an objective manner. Although individual terrorist cases require their own examination there are six flexible rules that must be followed in every case. The first rule states that a dialogue must be established and maintained with the terrorists. This keeps communication constant, open and honest. The second rule says that the U.S. must respond to routine demands, such as food, water and supplies. This keeps the terrorist content for the time being and ma...
