The problem as I see it with diplomacy today is that the Bush administration is filled with cowboys who like to do things their way. The Bush administration demands 100% loyalty from anyone in it and they feel other countries should follow the US blindly. Think of Bush’s statement, “You’re either with us or against us.”

Many of them (who were conceited conservative military-to-aid-the-transformation Wilsonians) have left the federal government because they “lost the peace” in Iraq.

There is no false dichotomy in the sense of everything is black or white, with no shades of gray. Be aware, though, that opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq efforts have been even more crude — all black (before, during, and after each decision and action by the Bush administration). Many of the anti-war and anti-Bush people make those who naively and arrogantly gambled and lost in Iraq look better in comparison.

Confession? Freudian slip? Apology?

I’ll accept all three from you.

* * *

Take a wild guess as to who wrote the piece I included in the comment.

Someone at N.R.O.?

Of course, that cannot be used to mischaracterize the rest of us who know Iran is a threat in the Middle East and has been a demonstrable threat beyond that region.

The problem as I see it with diplomacy today is that the Bush administration is filled with cowboys who like to do things their way. The Bush administration demands 100% loyalty from anyone in it and they feel other countries should follow the US blindly. Think of Bush’s statement, “You’re either with us or against us.” Bush doesn’t appreciate that other countries will place their own interests ahead of America’s interests. There might be certain agreements among the US and other countries- i.e. the need to fight terrorists, but those other countries may have very different ideas on how to go about it. For instance Bush invaded Iraq to fight the terrorists, but others thought it would have been more useful to actually go to the places where the terrorists were (and still are).

So yeah, as the last superpower, and given everything the US does in the world, other countries should be behind us, to the extent we actually have relations with and can influence them. But Bush should not expect the same 100% blind loyalty from other countries that he demands of the people serving in his administration (all Republicans at this point- as far as I can tell).

Confession? Freudian slip? Apology?

From all I have read and heard, the only way to permanently scotch Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be to invade the country, overthrow the government, nullify their armed forces, and maintain an army of occupation there for decades.

To say that is to begin to go astray, though it looks eerily like Iraq you are describing.

Iran the Hegemon [J### D#########]

Noah: If I understood you correctly, your argument there is that Iran wants to be the hegemon in the ME — as we are in the Americas, as China hopes to be in the Far East — and that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is meant to, and actually will, bolster that ambition.

I agree that something of the kind is in the minds of the Iranian leadership. Whether they can achieve their ambition against big local rivals (Egypt, S.A., Turkey) will be interesting to see. A lot of old-fashioned history is going to be played out there.

But suppose Iran were to attain her hegemonic ambition. This will hurt the U.S.A. … how? You say it would be putting “the economic health of the nation in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands.” How would it do that? Because Iran would control ME oil and refuse to sell it to us? Oil markets don’t, and in fact couldn’t, work like that. World oil production will anyway soon begin to decline. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. “Let’s declare war against Iran so we can prolong the cheap-oil fantasy for a few more years” — not, in my opinion, a very inspiring slogan.

As for “the security architecture in the Middle East that America has enforced, however shakily, for decades,” well, I think “shakily” is putting it very kindly. The ten-year Iran-Iraq war? The replacing of Soviet puppet rule in Afghanistan by jihadists? Three Arab-Israeli wars? Two gulf wars? “Shakily”? I would say.

If, as seems to be the case, Muslim Middle Easterners are addicted to mayhem, it seems to me we should stay out of their countries, except for monitory attacks on them — ferocious but brief — in retaliation for anything they do to us or our interests.

Given the rivalries and hatreds of the ME, I doubt a stable Iranian hegemony is possible. If it is possible, it’s something we’ll learn to live with, and no direct threat to the U.S.A. that I can see.

If all that is wrong — if Iranian ME hegemony is probable, and a threat to our country — how shall we prevent it? From all I have read and heard, the only way to permanently scotch Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be to invade the country, overthrow the government, nullify their armed forces, and maintain an army of occupation there for decades.

Your chances of selling that program to the American people are … what? Compared to, oh, say, the chances of Ron Paul being the Republican presidential candidate next fall?

The above taken from Joes post today here at TMV.

This perhaps sums up what I was trying to say and have been saying. The Us just simply does not have the weight nor ever will have the weight to throw around in a place like Pakistan. We should not even try. Instead we should simply try to exert influence, apply leverage and provide incentives.

That is diplomacy. This nation has not engaged in diplomacy since Teddy Roosevelt picked up his big stick.

The clueless, like Juan Cole

Even more clueless and ill-behaved, are the commenters to his postings. These — people, or things — vote, and their vote counts as much as yours or mine? (Now there’s something that needs correction, and never will be corrected.)

Why is it that the United States MUST always insist on things. We give Pakistan money. Other then that what puts us in a position to tell other countries what to do internally with their politics?

We get Oil from Saudi Arabia. Without that oil this country would go belly up. Why does Saudia Arabia not have the right to tell us how to school our children. Why dont they have a right to tell us to have early elections.

The clueless, like Juan Cole who think they have answers because they went to college and study politics have one inherant flaw in their addressing of foreign policy issues.

They approach their policy formulation with the preconceived notion that “WE have the right to tell other nations what to and not to do” based upon an ill conceived notion that the USA has the right by proxxy because we only have good intentions.

It is when the perceived lack of good intentions interferes with their policy formulation that those like Juan Cole speak up and say things like what I quoted above.

WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT TO INSIST on anything? Because we give them the money? Where is it written that the USA can interfere legitimately in the internal affairs of another soverign nation because we dont like the way they are doing things?

This type of thinking is what has gotten us to where we are today. The left the right, the moderates. ALL foreign policy since the turn of the last century seems to have ascribed to some invisible “GOD GIVEN RIGHT” built into the the thinking of American Politicians and Policy makers.

We do not have the right. It is our responsibility to encourage and promote freedom and democracy and policy that benefits the USA but it is not OUR RIGHT to interfere with the internal affairs of other soverign nations.

The sooner all these candidates learn this lesson the sooner we will return to diplomacy instead of intimidation thru the pocketbook.

Also…..the term is TERRORIST, not militant

Or “insurgent.” Don’t forget that little gem.

a. Have no credibility left on the issue after supporting Musharraf, Mubarek, and the Saudis.

b. Are hated so much because of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that any pro-US political figure like Bhutto is an instant target for assasination by terrorists. If you crush the terrorists you also end up cracking down on any pro-democracy forces.

Also…..the term is TERRORIST, not militant.

Just how do we do that? Anyone?

1. Be nice to them, agree with them, Understand Them.

2. Give them lots of (our) money.

Musharaff will simply pull a coup on himself and reestablish Military rule and take back the country and tell the world.

“I had to do it.” There is nothing the USA or anyone else can do to prevent this. Pakistan was a convenient tool for the war on terror.

I have to laugh at Obama’s assertion that we have to make Democracy work in Pakistan. But in fairness just about all the other candidates said the same thing.

Oh my Gawd after listening to the antiwar/far left for 4 years telling us Democracy will never work in places like Iraq and Afghanistan……now their darlings foreign policy consists of MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK in PAKISTAN???

Lord. Where have all the people with clues gone? Why have they deserted us and left us with Romney, Huckabee, Guilani, Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

I guess Shaun wants us to force Pakistan into another Iraq by MAKING DEMOCRACY work in Pakistan.

Just how do we do that? Anyone?

With the exception of North Korea, the U.S. has precious little to show by way of diplomacy, and it has not helped that the un-Cheney — Condoleezza Rice — is a resume without a woman and the most ineffectual secretary of state in recent memory.

Here’s a op-ed piece from a retired military officer at military.com that shares your opinion on Condo Rice.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,158932,00.html

Keystone Kondi’s Kurdish Kaper
Jeff Huber | December 26, 2007

Condoleezza Rice, Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and 66th United States Secretary of State, arrived unannounced in the oil rich Iraqi city of Kirkuk on December 18th, just after Turkey’s attacks on Kurdish targets in northern Iraq, to do what she does best: step into a bad situation and make it worse.

Keystone Kop-out

Kurdish regional President Massud Barzani refused to meet with her because the U.S. had assisted the Turks. Regional Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani (Massud’s nephew) said, “It is unacceptable that the United States, in charge of monitoring our airspace, authorized Turkey to bomb our villages.”
…