I've been saying for months that it isn't the goal of the administration that I and many so-called "peaceniks" have a problem with, it is the modality and the lack of quality thinking in policy and diplomacy that is really driving my opposition to this whole endeavor. To that end: Mainly I want to call attention to E. J. Dionne in the Wash. Post, outlines how many "hawks" in both parties, State Department and Pentagon are criticizing the character and direction of adminstration foreign policy and Iraq planning. Also the continuing decline in foreign perception of our motives, strategy and national sanity as the administration continues to shift motives and stated goals... looking for traction. This article in yesterday;s NYT: Kissinger, of course took the opposite position accusing the Euro-trash of having an anti-American agenda. Undeterred, the administration continues in its efforts to buy votes it can't persuade with sweet reason. Add to this the fact that our nearest neighbors, Mexico and Canada are not even in the sure, "yes" category.
I found this interesting, at the end of the Dionne piece: "In the meantime, the administration's acquiescence to warlord control of large parts of Afghanistan" Is there a good, fair, definitive article out there about the condition of Afghanistan?
There was warlord control of Afghanistan before the Taliban, during the Taliban and after the Taliban. During the Taliban woman had less rights than anywhere around the world and Al Queda was training openly without hinderance. Both of those have changed. Is there more to do in Afghanistan? Sure. However, I don't buy the notion that unless Afghanistan becomes a thriving first world democracy than our mission has failed.
In other words, according to EJ, it's not the substance of Bush's foreign policy...it's the inability to observe diplomatic niceties. EJ is right on one thing, though, and that is the ability of the Bush Adminstration to put out a consistent unified face on these subjects. I think Bush is falling into the trap that some CEOs do, in that he addresses these larger issues that cut across departments in a piecemeal fashion -- that is, first he sees Colin, and then he sees Donald, and so on. I am actually suprised that he -- or Andrew Card better yet -- hasn't gotten all these folks (the Joint Chiefs, Condi, Donald, Colin, Armitage, Ari, Dick) in one room for a day or two and just gotten their stories straight.
Niceties, schmiceties. These idiots can't do diplomacy period. Their idea of diplomacy is, "our way or the highway." Touche'.
Gee, I didn't know you equated decorum with spirituality. But then, you'd conflate ANYTHING if it would fit your SUPERficial SUPERdave conception of reality.
In foreign policy, you can't separate the substance from the diplomacy. The Bushies fail to realize this, and that's what makes them foreign policy idiots.
In other words if the Left in Europe and in US disagree with Bush's foreign policy then Bush must capitulate in order to be popular?
Excellent point. Now if only Donald "There Goes Another Ally" Rumsfeld would realize this we might still have some friends left.
Well, since they chose to tell whoppers, I guess it would've helped them to co-ordinate their BS stories. The fact that they haven't done this shows a lack of leadership and argues against the Bushies' ability to "win the peace" after any war. If they can't even organize themselves, how are they going to deal with the complexities inherent in nation-building in such a tinderbox of a region.
Well if you reread your previous post, what the hell does it mean other than what I wrote? Bush believes Saddam is a threat to his region, is unwilling to fully disarm and change his ways, has a high propensity to rebuild his WMD after inspections and possible lifting of sanctions. With that in my Bush believes the best way to solve this problem is through regime change. The Left in US and Europe disagree. Calling Bush an idiot for not seeking dipolomacy doesn't make much sense. Bush has used diplomacy but there is a fundamental disagreement in philosophy as to the best approach in Iraq.
When has Bush used diplomacy exactly? Quick diplomacy tutorial: You're either with us or against us doesn't count as diplomacy.
That's not my point. My point is that sustaining the norms of international law, and having the world community believe in the US' fairness and honesty, are important, and I, frankly, can't imagine what's at stake wrt Iraq that's worth pissing that away. Observieng those "niceties" matter, because they matter. Check out Kinsley's last (or maybe 2nd to last) article at Slate for a longer explication of this.
You and Bush seem to have a basic misunderstanding about the purpose of diplomay. The Bushies philosophy: There exists a fundamental disagreement; therefore, diplomacy is useless. Everybody else's philosophy: There exists a fundamental disagreement; therefore, diplomacy is necessary.
Sometimes the gaps are too large to bridge. The troops are in place and they can't stay there indefinately. The Bush administration is offering money and bribes to gain support. I don't see what else could be done.
Which is another failure of leadership. The Bushies put themselves in a position where anything short of a war would be seen as abject failure. Now other countries who are in a position tio interfere with that war know they have the Bushies over a barrel and can exact a high price for their co-operation. What kind of rookie locks himself into only one course of action from the beginning?
There have been alternatives for 12 years. The beginning? I think not. If you give Saddam any wiggle room, he will use it. That's been established.