« Leave bad enough alone: the FLDS case gone wrong
Understanding Some of Senator John McCain’s POW Experience: A PBS Film »
We Don’t Talk to Our Enemies…Except When We Do
It’s a strategy that has been much maligned, and rightly so. And, as Helene Cooper points out in the NYT, the rhetoric doesn’t exactly match the substance.
While Mr. Bush and his advisers have repeatedly scorned the idea of talking to enemies without first getting preconditions met, administration policy over the last seven years has been far more nuanced. In fact, the United States under the Bush administration has shown a sliding definition of just when it is beneficial to talk to whom.
Under Mr. Bush, the United States has held direct talks with Libya (which has admitted responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people); sent envoys and a warm presidential letter to North Korea (which detonated a nuclear device in 2006); and even participated, through American diplomats in Iraq, in talks with Iran (which the United States has accused of backing attacks against American forces in Iraq).
American diplomats do not talk to Hezbollah or Hamas — both militant Islamic organizations that Washington considers terrorist groups. But while the Bush administration long ago withdrew its ambassador from Syria, the United States does business with its government, which backs Hezbollah, and which the State Department has designated a state sponsor of terrorism.
So what was Mr. Bush talking about last week when he compared negotiations with terrorists and radicals with “the false comfort of appeasement”?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “We Don’t Talk to Our Enemies…Except When We Do”
Well I wouldn't call the Bush administrations diplomacy “nuanced” by any means. He has basically acted as though by ignoring them these countries would for some reason come crawling to us looking to make concessions. What instead happened was they proceeded to put themselves in a position where not even Bush could ignore them, at which point we have to deal with them once they are in a much stronger position.
Both N Korea and Iran fit this bill. Both nations are in much stronger positions now than they were in 2000, and frankly can't be ignored, otherwise I'm sure Bush would be doing so. Hamas and terrorist orgs can't be dealt with like that because they are not nations nor do they represent them. Except in the case of Hamas, which was duly elected, which I think was a huge missed opportunity for us.
This is by far a huge stretch to say we have talked to our enemies.
To be clear Libya after the invasion of Iraq approached the United States and said we want to give up our wmds and rejoin the community of nations. The United States said great. Read George Tenets book on how this went down.
England, Germany and Russia have been talking to Iran for several years without success. The United States has set in on and been a small part of those conversations.
North Korea stabbed Bill Clinton in the back for offering concessions for peaceful coexistence by doing the very thing they promised not to do. The United States said they will not negotiate with N. Korea Without the precondition of having other nations involved as well.
I think this article by the NY Times is a huge stretch on the Bush Administrations ability to actually talk to anyone.
But.
But lets say. Okay. Bush Actually does talk to his enemies. Then why is everyone pissed off at him for NOT talking to his enemies??
Kinda like the Barak Obama Syndrome. I love Israel and I want you guys to love them too at the negotiating table. Hes an appeaser. No he loves Israel. Well which is it. Please make up your mind.
Try this out:
A) He's not talking to his enemies, which is foolish
B) He's talking to his enemies while attacking others for saying we should be doing that, which is dishonest
C) He's talking to his enemies while insulting them publicly on a consistent basis, which is counterproductive
Chris
The op said “HES TALKING TO HIS ENEMIES.”
The point of my discussion.
Points b and c were done with the Soviet Union and that was in the end productive even though it took about 5 presidents to get it done.
Points b and c are the point of a blog like this aren't they? I mean you seem to look me up on posts and speak to me directly using points b and c.
Points b and c are the glue that holds the fabric together. Without points b and c there would be very little interest in blogs. I see my famous rating is a -6 for this website. Im famous.