Thursday, July 13, 2006

Diplomacy as Futility

Posted by Jabawacefti

Robert Kagan, author of Paradise and Power, describes his take on diplomacy with respect to Iran:

Let's imagine, and this is purely hypothetical, that President Bush has already decided that he will not leave office in January 2009 without a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. Let's imagine that he has already determined that if he cannot obtain Iran's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program voluntarily and verifiably, then he will order some form of military action to destroy as much of that program as possible before he leaves. Let's imagine that he has resolved not to end his two terms in office the way Bill Clinton ended his, by leaving every major international crisis -- from Iraq to Iran to North Korea to al-Qaeda -- for his successor.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Bush had made such a decision. What would he be doing right now? The answer is that he might be doing exactly what he is doing.


At 11:16 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

I'm not smart enough to understand this article, apparently.

Care to break it down for the peanut gallery? What's Kagan saying here?

At 7:13 AM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

It appeared to me that he's playing out the Iran nuke scenario in his head (or on paper), from what he would imagine would be the President's viewpoint.

It's a little like a hypothetical I raised a while ago.

You are the President. Iran is going to get nukes. Diplomacy is not going to do anything. Why pursue diplomacy anyway?

At 10:54 PM, Blogger codemorse said...



Total straw-man argument, but now I can at least understand it. :)

People who argue for the death of diplomacy should be taken out back by Madeline Albright and horse-whipped til they promise not to absurdly eliminate one of politics most effective tools anymore.


Post a Comment

<< Home