The US has a standing policy on negotiating with terrorists: we don't.  My understanding, which is based heavily on the Jack Ryan movies, is that entering into a dialogue about demands sets precedence that this practice is welcome here, looks at the other side as a legitimate party with whom this exercise is worth the time and that the power dynamic is more or less equitable.  From the United State's point-of-view, 'terrorists' aren't legitimate parties with whom we'd sit peer to peer and entertain discussions of demands. 

Eventually both parties take some action: stand down, walk away, take to arms, renegotiate the terms, something.  I don't claim to be a negotiations expert nor is this a comment on US policy (unless it leads to more Jack Ryan movies), but the stance of the government is clear.  There are certainly trade-offs and a lot of gray space, but the discussion on the point is a short one. 

Then I watched a young father and his two-year old dance around the last few bites of vegetables.  It's a dance that most parents are brought into at some point.  This particular discussion was quite animated.  Dad offered alternative vegetables, counted out green beans, set the prize of dessert on the table as a promise of what could be if his demands were met.  He cajoled, brought Mom in as an ally -- or tried to at least -- she wanted nothing to do with this discussion -- noted sister's Happy Plate and proud membership in the Clean Plate Club, modeling how well she ate her cookies as her prize. 

And the child dug in. 

Those of us at the table with older children knew how the drama would unfold.  We knew this was not about the vegetables and the toddler did too.  The toddler, like the terrorist, is looking for legitimacy -- a sense of individuality and control of his own destiny.  The child wanted to eat what he wanted to eat and sought to renegotiate the terms of the power dynamic: who was really in charge?  The child kept his cool, as did Dad, yet as the discussion continued, Dad gave up more and more ground, ceding to the demands of the child.  Eventually, as scripted, the child ate a symbolic bean and got his plate of cookies.  He won. 

Dad forgot that he's in charge. 

Dad forgot that 'no' is a complete sentence.

Dad forgot that toddlers are not (yet) rational beings, incapable of making logical arguments.

Dad didn't realize that the discussion was about power, not green beans.

While not all battles are worth fighting, the child now knows that, with enough work, he'll get what he wants.

Let me note that this is not a criticism of the father: I've been in his shoes and indeed, some battles aren't worth fighting. I don't know the larger discussion with this child.  I don't know what happened the night before or what Dad's larger goals are.  What I did observe is that this child is finding his voice and place in the world, bumping up against anything with the potential to move.

As I watched this, I wondered about my own parenting and leadership:

As my children grow into teenagers, how does power (control, influence, etc.) shift between us?

Which battles am I fighting that aren't worth fighting?

On whose terms am I negotiating?

What's the latest 'feedback' from a colleague really about (for me and for her)?

God speed young father.  Stand strong.