The CMT anticipated that any early exercise of force would be perceived by inhabitants of the Gustafsen Lake encampment as an attempt to limit their autonomy. The CMT treated the exercise of force as if it were an integral part of the negotiation approach and viewed the tactical side of the operation as part of the balance needed to bring the opposition to the negotiation table. Police tactical presence at Gustafsen Lake was designed to bring inhabitants of the encampment to their senses, not to their knees. Force was used to educate, since inhabitants in the encampment refused to reach agreement because they were convinced they could win and the reasoned exercise of force gave them an opportunity to discover the consequences of no agreement. The CMT believed that both encampment inhabitants and surrounding native communities had to be involved in the crisis management process. The CMT also determined that it was important to satisfy unfulfilled concerns and basic needs for recognition, security, identity, and autonomy and that people in the encampment needed to save face. In addition, the CMT took its time, realizing that agreement would be difficult for the opposition. The effective use of force as part of negotiations in hostage and barricade situations is discussed, based on the example of Gustafsen Lake.