We Should Talk to Our Enemies

[Maikeru-sama]

One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.

Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?

During the five decades of the cold war, when Americans had a more Manichaean view of the world, we did, from time to time, cut off relations with particularly odious leaders such as North Korea's Kim Il Sung or Albania's bloodthirsty and maniacal strongman, Enver Hoxha. But for the most part even our most ardent cold-war presidents—Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive—decided that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America. They all talked to Soviet leaders—men vastly more threatening to America's survival than Ahmadinejad or Chávez are now. JFK negotiated a nuclear Test-Ban Treaty with his mortal adversary, Nikita Khrushchev, just one year after the two narrowly avoided a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps more dramatically, Nixon, the greatest anticommunist crusader of his time, went to China in 1972 to repair a more than 20-year rupture with Mao Zedong that he believed no longer worked for America.

All of these cold-war presidents embraced a foreign-policy maxim memorialized by one of the toughest and most experienced leaders of our time, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, who defended his discussions with Yasir Arafat by declaring, "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." Why should the United States approach the world any differently now? Especially now? As Americans learned all too dramatically on 9/11 and again during the financial crisis this autumn, we inhabit a rapidly integrating planet where dangers can strike at any time and from great distances. And when others—China, India, Brazil—are rising to share power in the world with us, America needs to spend more time, not less, talking and listening to friends and foes alike.

The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America's acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.

Newsweek CONT'D (http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650)

[DaBoys4Life]

no negotiation that's a sign of weakness!!

[Phrozen Phil]

Maybe the question is: Do you want America to be feared or respected? The last eight years have been about brinkmanship and war. Unless some form of dialogue can exist, then war would likely become the inevitable option.

[iceberg]

the real answer is - it's not that simple.

will iran go "wow, we hated bush but we'll stop nuclear ambitions now w/obama there cause he's cool".?

i don't think so. they want israel dead so "talking" isn't the answer. it also does legitimize things that we critisize and that already puts you in a bad position.

i am all for trying to talk it out but you can't just waltz over to their side and expect to be respected for doing so. if *they* want some changes then they need to come onto a common ground also...preconditions.

[Phrozen Phil]

the real answer is - it's not that simple.

will iran go "wow, we hated bush but we'll stop nuclear ambitions now w/obama there cause he's cool".?

I don't think so. they want israel dead so "talking" isn't the answer. it also does legitimize things that we critisize and that already puts you in a bad position.

I am all for trying to talk it out but you can't just waltz over to their side and expect to be respected for doing so. if *they* want some changes then they need to come onto a common ground also...preconditions.

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting for a moment that anybody go "waltzing over", but I do think that, with a solid mandate, the new President could certainly approach the othr side from a position of strength. Bush was so utterly incompetent at diplomacy that he squandered much of the good will that was expressed after 9-11.

The Iranians are full of bluster and hostility, but a more measured approach might get some better mileage in terms of getting them off their screaming and shouting routine.

[Trouble]

We Should Talk to our Enemies


Just ask Israel how well it works by talking and making concessions with your enemies.

Most of our true enemies are terrorist countries, and unfortunately violence is the only language they understand.



:starspin

[Phrozen Phil]

Just ask Israel how well it works by talking and making concessions with your enemies.

Most of our true enemies are terrorist countries, and unfortunately violence is the only language they understand.



:starspin

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.

[iceberg]

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.

if we do nothing *but* consider history, there will never be peace in that region.

[Jordan55]

As Teddy Roosevelt, once said
Walk Softly and carry a Big Stick, but in keeping with the subject you can see the success the Europeans have had with talking to Iran.
And Reagen made it perfectly clear to Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI, in Libiya. Talking didn't work there either.
In a perfect world maybe, this just in WASHINGTON (AP) - Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has been convicted of lying about free home renovations and other gifts he received from a wealthy oil contractor. unfortunately the world isn't perfect, now lock this ******* up for a good period of time.

[Phrozen Phil]

if we do nothing *but* consider history, there will never be peace in that region.

I'm all for doing something, but Israel made peace with Egypt based on a leap of faith by two leaders with vision. If you recall, the U.S. had a part in making that happen. Let's not forget a large group of Palestinians who have no ability to control their own destiny and no opportunity to return to the land of their birth. Until the issue of Israeli settlers in the West Bank is resolved, it will be tough to make meaningful progress. That's just for starters. I agree completely that Israel should have stable and secure borders and that it's neighbours should acknowledge it's right to exist, but it's not as simple as picking a side and ignoring the others.

[Trouble]

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.


Go tell that to an Egyptian. In a recent poll conducted in Egypt, 94% of all Egyptians see Israel as thier #1 enemy. Egyptian military soldiers have been caught supporting and helping Hamas terrorist cross borders to inflict violence of Israel.

Consider what's presently going on before you respond.




:starspin

[joseephuss]

Just ask Israel how well it works by talking and making concessions with your enemies.

Most of our true enemies are terrorist countries, and unfortunately violence is the only language they understand.



:starspin

Talking does not equal making concessions. You can have talks without negotiating. I don't see the problem with sending lower level administration officials had having initial talks with other countries. I truly don't.

[iceberg]

Talking does not equal making concessions. You can have talks without negotiating. I don't see the problem with sending lower level administration officials had having initial talks with other countries. I truly don't.

you mean like preconditions?

so mccain is right? just wondering where you're going here.

i'm all for opening up channels to talk. however, it must come from respect or you're gonna get bent over out of being nieve.

[Phrozen Phil]

Go tell that to an Egyptian. In a recent poll conducted in Egypt, 94% of all Egyptians see Israel as thier #1 enemy. Egyptian military soldiers have been caught supporting and helping Hamas terrorist cross borders to inflict violence of Israel.

Consider what's presently going on before you respond.




:starspin

Is that the same poll that has McCain winning? ;)

[Trouble]

Talking does not equal making concessions.



I never said it did.

Israel has done both and look where it's got them.


:starspin

[iceberg]

Is that the same poll that has McCain winning? ;)

how many polls in egypt has mccain winning? :)

fyi - my coworker is from egypt and he said best way to put it would be neutral. they want to protect their tourist industry and just want all that violence out of their country. he did say however if there was someone they didn't care for it would be hamas/palistinians and that he doubted very seriously egypt would help them at all.

[Trouble]

Is that the same poll that has McCain winning? ;)



Right, it's the "FOX EGYPT" poll conducted by the "Republican Egyptian Party".



:lmao2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

The problem, IMO, is that Americans simply do not understand the Middle East. There culture is so different from ours that it is very difficult to find commen points of interest. What seems reasonable to us just doesn't apply many, many times.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Anwar_Sadat_cropped.jpg/225px-

This man's name was Anwar Sadat. He was the President of Egypt. In 79 or 80, he created a piece treaty with Isreal, the first of it's kind. The first Arab leader to recongnize Isreal as a nation. He won the Nobel Piece Prize for this. For this, they assasinated him.

Now, you may say that this happened almost 30 years ago and you would be right. However, I would not make the mistake of thinking that just because this happened 30 years ago, things have changed so very much. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Omar Abdel-Rahman and al-Hamid Kishk were the main Culprets in this assasination. They may sound familiar to you. They should, Kishk was the spiratual leader of al-Azhar, and al-Zawahiri was the leader of Al-Queda in Egypt, the same person who landed in the Sudan in 1990, the same time Bn Laden was there, the same person who joined the Red Cresent in Pakistan and eventually helped found the Afghanistan factions of Al Qaeda and established relations with Iran, on behalf of Al Qaeda. Omar Abdel-Rahman was the Co-founder of an organization called MAK, Who was the other Co-Founder? That was Osama Bin Laden. Rahman was responsible for the training of the people who commited the 93 bombing of the World Trade Center. MAK would become the chief finance arm of Al-Qaeda and would finance terrorist opperations all over the world, including 9/11.

American's don't know the Middle East. We don't understand how it works. A simple thing like preconditions may not seem like a big thing to us but in the eyes of Middle Eastern fanatics, it's all the difference in the world.

[Doomsday101]

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.

Egypt accepted the rights of Israel to exist that is a major concession for peace between the 2 countries. Talk is meaningless if the party you are dealing with has no intentions of making any concessions. US has been willing to lift sanction if Iran will stop enrichment they choose not to so there is nothing to talk about. Lower level people do keep contact with these nations but the top leaders should not sit down and legitimize these leaders.

[Maikeru-sama]

There is no problem with sitting down and talking to your enemies.

I definately don't think speaking to an enemy is a sign of weakness.

[iceberg]

There is no problem with sitting down and talking to your enemies.

I definately don't think speaking to an enemy is a sign of weakness.

depends on the enemy. not being sarcastic but this would think that every enemy has the same mindset. to some just talking w/o rhetoric first makes you weak.

now you wanna go talk to that enemy w/o doing your homework first?

[Maikeru-sama]

depends on the enemy. not being sarcastic but this would think that every enemy has the same mindset. to some just talking w/o rhetoric first makes you weak.

now you wanna go talk to that enemy w/o doing your homework first?

A poster threw out a false general notion that it is weak to talk to your enemies, I simply stated that this is false.

And saying that we need to do some homework is a very mute point because I am pretty sure we know a whole heck of alot about Iran.

The current powers that be in Iran make me extremely nervous, even more so when you take into account that they have a huge amount of oil and untapped oil fields and they have deals with both China and Russia to help tap into it.

They have a very strong pro-American youth and the citizens of Iran don't even like Ahmadbinejad, but everytime we place sanctions on them and talk about bombing them to the stone age when they say something bad about Isreal, you force the citizens of Iran to pick the side of their government, as I stated, a side they really don't like.

[iceberg]

A poster threw out a false general notion that it is weak to talk to your enemies, I simply stated that this is false.

And saying that we need to do some homework is a very mute point because I am pretty sure we know a whole heck of alot about Iran.

The current powers that be in Iran make me extremely nervous, even more so when you take into account that they have a huge amount of oil and untapped oil fields and they have deals with both China and Russia to help tap into it.

They have a very strong pro-American youth and the citizens of Iran don't even like Ahmadbinejad, but everytime we place sanctions on them and talk about bombing them to the stone age when they say something bad about Isreal, you force the citizens of Iran to pick the side of their government, as I stated, a side they really don't like.

we fully agree on the "educating yourself first" comment, so many assumptions should be covered if you do that right.

i do think bush turns a blind eye there, but i don't see much from ahmadbinejad to make me think he's not radical and won't stay with radical views. what amazes me is if we have a questionable leader, we take every shot at him we can and make ourselves feel better. we fragment ourselves.

countries like iran rally behind their leader.

just something i ponder when bossa novva is on.

[ABQCOWBOY]

just something i ponder when bossa novva is on.


Ya know, that's really what we all need a little more of, Bossa Novva!

:D

[Maikeru-sama]

we fully agree on the "educating yourself first" comment, so many assumptions should be covered if you do that right.

i do think bush turns a blind eye there, but i don't see much from ahmadbinejad to make me think he's not radical and won't stay with radical views. what amazes me is if we have a questionable leader, we take every shot at him we can and make ourselves feel better. we fragment ourselves.

countries like iran rally behind their leader.

just something i ponder when bossa novva is on.

Oh, I totally disagree.

It is like the Brother/Sister Syndrome. You can talk about your sister, but nobody else outside the family can do it.

Once this country was attacked on 9/11, everyone rallied abour George W. Bush. You had record breaking enlistment in the army, blood and monetary donations. Just about everyone in this country was willing to do whatever it took to get the people who did it.

Americans do get behind their leader.

It may not seem like it because we have freedom of speech and places like Iran don't, but we do.

[iceberg]

Oh, I totally disagree.

It is like the Brother/Sister Syndrome. You can talk about your sister, but nobody else outside the family can do it.

Once this country was attacked on 9/11, everyone rallied abour George W. Bush. You had record breaking enlistment in the army, blood and monetary donations. Just about everyone in this country was willing to do whatever it took to get the people who did it.

Americans do get behind their leader.

It may not seem like it because we have freedom of speech and places like Iran don't, but we do.

maybe so. but if we got behind bush in any real fashion, would we have the divide we have now? i'd have to say there's a limit and that limit changes with the culture of the time.

[bbgun]

We Should Talk to Our Enemies

We already talk to France.

[Maikeru-sama]

maybe so. but if we got behind bush in any real fashion, would we have the divide we have now? i'd have to say there's a limit and that limit changes with the culture of the time.

Again, the country did get behind George W. Bush after 9/11, it would be insane to think otherwise.

And the country got behind him despite having had one of the most contentious elections the country had ever seen.

It was only after we saw that their was no strategy whatsoever to democratize Iraq and dubious reasons for war, is when you started to see criticism thrown his way.

Again, America isn't Iran, we have freedom of speech and one of the most important jobs of the citizens of this country is to keep an eye out on the Government. Hell, some people will even say that is why we need the right to bear arms.

[iceberg]

Again, the country did get behind George W. Bush after 9/11, it would be insane to think otherwise.

And the country got behind him despite having had one of the most contentious elections the country had ever seen.

It was only after we saw that their was no strategy whatsoever to democratize Iraq and dubious reasons for war, is when you started to see criticism thrown his way.

Again, America isn't Iran, we have freedom of speech and one of the most important jobs of the citizens of this country is to keep an eye out on the Government. Hell, some people will even say that is why we need the right to bear arms.

after 9/11 yes. but that didn't last and it became a "lie vs wrong" debate that's sharply divided us.

i'm all for freedom of speech. where people make it self-serving is when i get concerned. we divided for a lot of reasons i think fair to say it will take ANYONE a while to fully understand. does anyone really understand the times they're living in while they're living in them?

[Maikeru-sama]

after 9/11 yes. but that didn't last and it became a "lie vs wrong" debate that's sharply divided us.

i'm all for freedom of speech. where people make it self-serving is when i get concerned. we divided for a lot of reasons i think fair to say it will take ANYONE a while to fully understand. does anyone really understand the times they're living in while they're living in them?

It lasted quite a bit.

There were huge questions about invading Iraq, not sure why this is such a big deal.

We were talking about invading a country that hadn't attacked us. That scared the crap out of alot of people.

If a great case had been made and irrefutable evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, the majority of Americans would have been with George W. Bush.

It also didn't help that there was this aura of "your not american if you disagree with the president" that was created.

[iceberg]

It lasted quite a bit.

There were huge questions about invading Iraq, not sure why this is such a big deal.

We were talking about invading a country that hadn't attacked us. That scared the crap out of alot of people.

If a great case had been made and irrefutable evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, the majority of Americans would have been with George W. Bush.

It also didn't help that there was this aura of "your not american if you disagree with the president" that was created.

and now we have you're racist if you don't like obama.

i don't deny human nature is typically scared, which is why fearing 'em around works so well. neither attitude is healthy and the root of what i'm getting at.

how do we back away from such a dangerous point? are we even willing to?

[Maikeru-sama]

and now we have you're racist if you don't like obama.

i don't deny human nature is typically scared, which is why fearing 'em around works so well. neither attitude is healthy and the root of what i'm getting at.

how do we back away from such a dangerous point? are we even willing to?

I agree you have a little bit of the Racists if you don't vote for Obama. I don't hear that that much, but it probably has to do with my color.

Personally, I think the theme of "You're not a true American if you vote for Obama" is a little louder though.

[iceberg]

I agree you have a little bit of the Racists if you don't vote for Obama. I don't hear that that much, but it probably has to do with my color.

Personally, I think the theme of "You're not a true American if you vote for Obama" is a little louder though.

not disagreeing with what you've heard - but i've not heard that "true american" about obama.

but i do hear a lot of questioning traditional american values that he seems to fly against, so i understand the correlation.

now, let me simply ask this w/o trying to start an argument. if obama is more socialist than what we've built up to date, can you see where that viewpoint would be coming from?

not agree - but see. since people mostly think in extremes "true american" is quicker and easier to say/read than a dissertation. :) people tend to boil things down their simplest terms to them.

[Maikeru-sama]

not disagreeing with what you've heard - but i've not heard that "true american" about obama.

but i do hear a lot of questioning traditional american values that he seems to fly against, so i understand the correlation.

now, let me simply ask this w/o trying to start an argument. if obama is more socialist than what we've built up to date, can you see where that viewpoint would be coming from?

not agree - but see. since people mostly think in extremes "true american" is quicker and easier to say/read than a dissertation. :) people tend to boil things down their simplest terms to them.

Absolutely.

When someone comes out and says "spread the wealth", that scares quite a few people.

I know most will disagree with this, but I just don't think the guy can do any worse than George W. Bush (a guy I kinda feel sorry for based on something I watched recently :) ).

We just gave HUGE amounts of cash to Wall St. and now the Government has stakes in banks. And the supposed Conservative John McCain voted for it.

That is more alarming to me.

[zrinkill]

I have heard if you do not Vote for Obama its because he is black.

I have heard if you vote for McCain you just want 4 more years of Bush.

I have heard if you do not vote for McCain, you are ungrateful of his service and Un-Patriotic.

I have heard if you vote for Obama you are a Socialist.


I have heard Bull**** from both sides ....... and it makes me sick.



We deserve whatever we get.

.
.
.

[Rowdy]

Ill just be glad when its Wednesday and we can figure out where to go from there...

[jrumann59]

McCain didn't say the US would talk to enemies, he stated he, himself would not sit down at a "Presidential" meeting unless there were preconditions. Obama was very vague basically saying I would have dialog but never specified president to president or lower level diplomatic talks. I actually side with McCain on this one, let the lower level guys iron out the major points before giving legitimacy to nutjobs like Ahmedinijad. These methods worked with Libya and to some extent N. Korea.

[iceberg]

McCain didn't say the US would talk to enemies, he stated he, himself would not sit down at a "Presidential" meeting unless there were preconditions. Obama was very vague basically saying I would have dialog but never specified president to president or lower level diplomatic talks.

what does he specify?

[jrumann59]

what does he specify?

Nothing just that he favors talks.

[Phrozen Phil]

I have heard if you do not Vote for Obama its because he is black.

I have heard if you vote for McCain you just want 4 more years of Bush.

I have heard if you do not vote for McCain, you are ungrateful of his service and Un-Patriotic.

I have heard if you vote for Obama you are a Socialist.


I have heard Bull**** from both sides ....... and it makes me sick.



We deserve whatever we get.

.
.
.

I think it was H.L. Mencken who said that "the people will get the kind of government they deserve, and they'll get it good and hard." ;)

[SuspectCorner]

Adios to failed neocon foreign policy... we don't know that providing an opening for dialogue will work with rogue nations.

But we DO KNOW that unilateral stonewalling is unproductive. Quite.

Next issue?

[BigWillie]

Why do people keep bring up Ahmadinejad? The guy literally has nothing to do with us or Israel. He doesn't control Iran's army and he doesn't control anything to do with their nuclear program. Basically, the guy is a big mouth with the ability to do absolutely nothing.

The true power in Iran is Ali Khamenei who controls both Iran's military and nuclear program.

Although it doesn't really matter since both hate Israel.

Also, only the Iranian leaders have a negative view on the USA. If it were left up to the people of Iran, there would be no tension between the two nations. I read an article a few weeks back about a college student in Iran who said most people her age have learned not to even listen to the propoganda filled TV stations in Iran. Her and her friends mainly had a positive view of the US.

[burmafrd]

[quote=Maikeru-sama;2379229]I agree you have a little bit of the Racists if you don't vote for Obama. I don't hear that that much, but it probably has to do with my color.


So do you thing anyone NOT voting for Obama has to be a racist in some way?

[Beast_from_East]

Didnt JFK say that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate???

People act like we are going to be inviting Achmidinajad over to the White House for tea, of course that is crazy.

What is wrong with meeting with him and telling him "if you dont stop your nuclear program, we are going to bomb you back to the stone age and if you think we wont do it, see Iraq and Afganistan".

You tell him to his face that if Iran as much as sneezes in Israel's direction, that there will be so many tomahawks in the sky headed his way that it will look like a freaking eclispe.

I really dont see anything wrong with sitting down with the guy and explaining in very blunt terms what happens if he doesnt play ball with us.

What exactly do you Repubs find so offensive about this????

[Ren]

Have fun talking to Bin Laden

[Maikeru-sama]

[quote=Maikeru-sama;2379229]I agree you have a little bit of the Racists if you don't vote for Obama. I don't hear that that much, but it probably has to do with my color.


So do you thing anyone NOT voting for Obama has to be a racist in some way?

No.

I was agreeing with Iceberg that their are alot of people out their saying that.