New Column

On Bush's addled concept of diplomacy:

So, probably, to get them to do what we want them to do, we're going to have to offer some kind of concessions or reassurances that they want. This is what used to be called "diplomacy." Alternatively, we could -- without warning and for no real reason -- just announce a new national space strategy designed to cope with far-fetched scenarios but that can only be viewed as a major affront to the interests and sensibilities of other major powers like Russia and China.

This is precisely the sort of thing the Bush administration doesn't seem to think about. And they don't think about it because they don't really understand what diplomacy is. To them, it's simple. Diplomacy means talking. The alternative to diplomacy is coercion. If you want a country to do something, you might try to get it to do that thing through threats -- either of military force or of economic sanctions. In situations where coercion is impossible or undesirable, they resort to their version of "diplomacy," talking -- saying what it is you want the other country to do, over and over again, in hopes that they will do it.

Read the whole thing! Or not.

Comments

Read the whole thing!

What concessions are you willing to offer me to get me to read it? Or are you just like the Bush Administration and will refuse to negotiate?

Posted by Al | October 24, 2006 3:19 PM

So Bush is willing to talk...and talk...and talk...but not concede anything, which is the central component of any/all diplomacy. Kristol (who is batshit, foaming at the mouth insane and most likely he and Krauthammer were evil twins seperated at birth) on the other hand says "screw talking, either you agree with us or the airstrikes begin". Well first off Kristol should not be allowed within 100 miles of where any foreign policy decisions are made. Secondly of course Bush would rather be waterboarded then make diplomatic concessions because making any concessions shows weakness. So nothing will happen in the last 2 years of Bush's lame duck term. Meanwhile we are giving reasons for countries, who individually can't stand up to us militarily, to maybe make alliances where they can collectively dictate to us what they want us to do instead. This is a foreign policy?

BTW...if it was me I wouldn't negotiate with Al in any effort to get him to read your new column. That is worth taking a hardline over... :-P

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | October 24, 2006 7:49 PM

I'm digging your droll prose style

Posted by John | October 25, 2006 8:14 AM

There's another priceless example from Bush's Q&A session today:

The president said the world expects Iran and Syria to help quell sectarian violence in Iraq, but he rejected the idea of working directly with Iran while Tehran pursues a nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations.

"If they would verifiably stop their enrichment, the United States would be at the table with them," Bush said.
So: we need Iran to help pacify Iraq, and we also strongly desire that they shelve their nuclear program.

That's two things we want from them. Yet not only are we offering nothing in return, but we're saying we won't even sit down and talk with them unless they make concessions to us first.

That makes no sense at all. The weird thing is, hardly anyone notices.

Posted by RT | October 25, 2006 2:28 PM

Fundamental Misconception

The purpose of the talk that Bushco throws at foreign powers isn't to influence their behavior. Bushco's words are always, always, in both foreign and domestic settings, directed at influencing the US electorate, and that only. Actually getting foreign powers to change their behavior would be actively counterproductive to the end of influencing the US electorate. The most powerful influence foreign affairs can have on the electorate that the administration finds useful is to create fear. Foreign powers that changed their behavior in ways that favored out national interests would be less useful at generating the fear in the electorate that the administration needs in order to stay in control.

We're six years into this administration, and a keen observer of the political scene such as yourself still needs instruction in the basics of the difference between the faith-based and the reaity-based communities?

Posted by Glen Tomkins | October 26, 2006 12:33 AM