Calls for Reform to U.S. Negotiation Strategy

In the wake of the death of American journalist, James Foley, at the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), several former and current U.S. officials are calling for change in the United States policy on hostage negotiations. ISIS is one of the most extreme terror groups the U.S. has faced in a while, too dangerous even for al Qaeda, which disavowed the group because it felt it could not control it. It's "hard to imagine" being able to strike a deal with them, said former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, noting that the U.S. had much more success in securing the release of people taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States has a very strict and mostly successful negotiation policy when it comes to ransoms, which is to just not pay them. In the case of James Foley, ISIS attempted to extort more than $130 million from the U.S. in exchange for Foley's release. Once denied, they beheaded him as an apparent punishment for U.S. airstrikes against the militant group. This is when the question, “What is a life worth,” beats in the minds and hearts of our nation’s citizens and politicians. Who can determine what price should be paid to save a life and when do you draw the line on how many can be saved? The U.S. tries to avoid the even further conflict that comes with asking those questions by simply deciding to not negotiate with terrorist groups whatsoever. Other countries don’t have such a policy in place and have become somewhat of a revolving door for ransom cash grabs. A New York Times investigation found that al Qaeda and its affiliates had brought in at least $125 million through ransom payments since 2008, including $66 million in 2013. That money came largely from European governments. Terrorist organizations relish the opportunity to negotiate with governments and see their success as a direct measure of power and influence. So the choice is, lose a life, or give money and an ego boost to people that ultimately want to destroy your...