The United States can begin by relaxing certain restrictions in its anti-terrorism policy. Aid agencies do not hand over money to activists willingly, but are forced to. They donate money to help people who desperately need basic necessities. The ultimate goal is to reach people who desperately need international aid. In some cases, it is necessary to evaluate which is the best course of action between the two difficult options. Give money to the activists and provide aid to the people or not negotiate with the activists and watch the people suffer. I think the United States needs to consider the lesser evil. Understandably, the United States is concerned about designated funds falling into the hands of militants to finance and carry out operations, but aid must reach the people who are suffering. The United States can take initiative and establish a direct line of communication between the Somali government and activists to achieve a common goal of helping the people of this war-ravaged country. I think this can set the stage for future diplomatic meetings between Somalia and the United States. Direct negotiations with Al-Shabaab could even be possible if diplomacy comes to the table. If aid does not reach people on time, suffering will increase and the number of deaths will rise. If Al-Shabaab continues to exploit humanitarian aid agencies, projects and future humanitarian aid efforts will be hampered or even stopped. One option the United States could consider would be to establish liaison operations with the Somali government and Al-Shabaab leaders. This action can produce valuable intelligence and assist humanitarian agencies...... middle of paper ...... information available separately from the source. After gathering the information needed to support the article, I verified the information and compared it to other information to validate the position of the reference(s). This had to be done throughout the article to get the most accurate information possible. Throughout this article, I have used “What if” analysis. “What if” analysis assumes that an event has occurred with a potential impact (positive or negative) and explains how it might occur. Shifts the focus from whether an event could happen/occur to how it can happen. From different perspectives, I was able to see both positive and negative results if certain actions were taken. There are an infinite amount of “what ifs” for any scenario. Using the perspectives of all parties involved led to the best possible decision for the situation..