The aim in any hostage taking is the safe return of the hostages. The experience gained over many decades has led to a refinement of the negotiation process. This information is shared through many countries and agencies. Hostage negotiation is most like a game of chess where the hostage taker is checkmated and no pieces are lost.
To those with no worthwhile experience in this area the game may seem slow and pointless. For those same people to make judgements on such a complex process exposes them as no more than armchair experts whose only knowledge is based on movies and make believe.
To have lost only two hostages in the Sydney siege is a good outcome. It could have been far, far worse. Ideally the negotiation would have gone on and on and a peaceful resolution would have been attained, which is the primary goal. The length of the negotiations are irrelevant. It's the outcome that counts.
To charge in there and 'paint the walls' would have caused a bloodbath and is not the preferred course of action of any agency worldwide, unless forced into such action.
