Which do you prefer, talk or war? Isn't it really that simple? It seems so to me. If the United States of America were not a superpower (the only one currently)perhaps talk would be a more interesting and viable approach.
Is there anyone out there who feels that war is anything other than the absolute last option?
Is there any rational reason to refuse to talk with any country?
It is really hard to contain my thoughts on this and maintain a focus on just this one issue. So many other closely related thoughts flood in and demand attention. Perhaps I can address those in subsequent postings, things like "who can threaten us?", "the success or failure of past wars", "preemptive wars", "what war are we fighting".
According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html) there are 266 nations, dependent areas, and other entities in the world. 192 nations are members of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/english/). The US State Department (http://www.usembassy.gov/) lists 201 countries, but I can't be sure if we have embassies in each. Where am I going with this? Simply this - all of these entities must talk with each other. When talking stops, physical fighting often starts, so it is imperative to keep talking.
The USA does this to a large degree. We maintain diplomatic relationships with most countries and participate actively in the United Nations. This is the name of the game - diplomacy (talk).
Talk can never hurt. Talk won't kill anyone. War does hurt. And war does kill.
So the answer for me is quite simple. Keep talking. Start talking. It is the preferred method by far.
Listen (that's the other side of talk, by the way). Listen to your friends. Listen to your enemies. Consider. Evaluate. Postulate alternatives.
There are other options, ways to help others see your point, such as all kinds of economic pressures. Use talk to persuade other nations to apply pressure, to join the cause, whatever it is.
In the end, realize that there is always a negotiation involved, and that as sound and firm as your position is, it may not be possible to have it all.
Keep talking. Listen. Save the last alternative until there is absolutely no other option. [by the way, I thought this was US policy until just recently.....]
Oh, I almost forgot. As I understand it, Barack Obama has stated that he will talk to the heads of state of our enemies as well as our friends, and John McCain has chided Obama for suggesting that. According to the John McCain website (http://johnmccain.com/), "While he (John) supports robust diplomacy with our allies and adversaries, he would not rush to bestow the prestige of unconditional presidential meetings on the world’s worst dictators." and "Senator Obama proposes to conduct presidential summit meetings with the world’s worst dictators."
As I read the above from John McCain, I note the following: John supports diplomacy with our adversaries (including presumably the 'world's worst dictators", but would not rush into it. From Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)"He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead." I don't see the "rush" mentioned on the McCain website.
My opinion (this is an opinion piece) is that John McCain will not use diplomacy with our adversaries, but would follow the course followed for the last eight years. I believe Barack Obama will pursue diplomacy.
The last time war accomplished anything was, in my opinion, WWII, when Hitler was stopped. What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!
4 comments:
Oh, where do I begin?
Right here I guess.
(1) To answer your question, "Which do you prefer, talk or war?," I prefer talk to war. Is this a loaded question implying that the two are mutually exclusive and that the option always occurs?
(2) History has shown that sometimes negotiations succeed, and sometimes they fail.
(3) The current presidency has had much success with the North Korea situation using diplomacy, without one-on-one leader meetings.
(4) Could you sketch out a top-level, brief outline of what you would talk about were you the president and allowed to sit down with a leader of Al Qaeda? What would you want President Obama to talk about with him -- or 'her' if Al Qaeda has accepted female leaders by then.
(5) Were Democrats involved in advancing the Vietnam War which was in the implied period of useless wars? If so, should they be forgiven?
(6) Here's your question, "Is there any rational reason to refuse to talk with any country?" (I assume you mean the leader of the country.) That is asked of America here I believe, but should equally be asked of the leader of any country.
(7) The parsing of the word, rush, is tedious and begs the question. (Of course, it's okay for me to parse your "Which do you prefer" question.)
(8) I think your good article would have been better if you'd have addressed the flood of thoughts and questions instead of entering the he-said vs. he-said line.
Aaron the Menace
Aaron, Menace or not, I agree with most of your comments. As to 'my' agenda for talks with Al Qaeda (male or female)(#4), if I were smart enough to create that agenda I might run for president! And by 'talk', I include not only head of state meetings, but all of the diplomatic processes. I'm sure Obama means that too.
Vietnam, like so many other mistakes, is over. Let's hope we learned something from it. Forgiveness? It's over - move on. Forget? Never - remember it, don't ever repeat it.
As for the who-said-what, I think it's important, and part of this blog.
Thanks for your comments - I look forward to more in the future.
War is hell. Certainly the death, gore, hardships and brutality of battle are thought of, but there are other hell-ish things also.
First, we teach our youth to kill people. We really NEED that in this day and age, right?
Then, we encourage hatred "of the enemy" in our citizenry. Did any of you see "A Dream in Doubt" on PBS last month? Hatred doesn't seem to stop where we want it. We really NEED more hatred, right?
Then we subject our military to conditions where they MUST make decisions with no good alternatives. As at Mei Lei, or Abu Ghraib prison. Or as I was told by a veteran "The order was 'Take these (North Korean) prisoners to the detention center (2 days away) and BE BACK BY NIGHTFALL.' I knew what the order was."
Then WE, as a nation, have to make tough decisions about how we treat our veterans. VA Hospitals, GI Bill benefits, how do we put a limit on these, as we must?
These are a few instances of what war IS. Anybody who thinks differently is certainly naive. We cannot have war without these. Every General, from Sherman to Bradley, knew this.
War is not glorious. War is not glamorous. War is not noble, although vast amounts of nobility and nobleness occur. War is hell.
And, yes, there are times when we need to march into hell. But we need to realize we are doing just that. A last resort? I certainly hope so.
Kinda tough to talk with a Arab who is holding a dull knife at your throat.
Kinda tough to talk with a Persian who dreams of the day he can destroy Israel.
Kinda tough to talk with a band of Chechens who have hundreds of small children kept hostage in a school and all they want to do is die with them.
Kinda tough to talk with people who want to die in order to martyr themselves.
Sometimes you just have to kill them first.
That is a hard fact for some to get.
Not that I like war. I think it sux. But sometimes you just gotta pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get 'r done.
Too bad the current administration has not managed the politics of it so well.
Post a Comment