Talking to enemies

[BC_chick]

With Obama's stance on talking to enemies, this issue seems to be the topic of many conversations, with strong opinions both for and against talking to enemies. Without too much surprise to the visitors on this board, I am all for open dialogue.

For me it's quite simple actually - I use the old "best-case scenario" vs. "worst-case scenario" tool used in decision making:

Best-case scanario: diplomacy prevails.

Worst-case scenario: we're right back where we started.

In other words, there is nothing to lose, and a lot to gain.

I am not trying to be inflammatory, but I really would like to understand the reasoning behind not talking to enemies... so I would like to hear from anti-talk crowd. Oh and "no negotiations with terrorists" doesn't count. I want to know why... if you want, use the best-case scenario and worst-case scenario to elaborate.

Edited May 11, 2008 by BC_chick

[kuzadd]

With Obama's stance on talking to

I am not trying to be inflammatory, but I really would like to understand the reasoning behind not talking to enemies... so I would like to hear from anti-talk crowd. Oh and "no negotiations with terrorists" doesn't count. I want to know why... if you want, use the best-case scenario and worst-case scenario to elaborate.

confessing to not knowing exactly what Obama's stance is on this scenario.....

nor really being all that interested.....

are we speaking diplomacy versus warfare?

ah, maybe you could clarify, with thanks in advance.

and the stance of "no negotiating with terrorists" is such nonsense anyway.

if you wouldn't mind BC chick?

Edited May 11, 2008 by kuzadd

[BC_chick]

confessing to not knowing exactly what Obama's stance is on this scenario.....

nor really being all that interested.....

are we speaking diplomacy versus warfare?

Unlike McCain and Clinton, Obama is the only presidential candidate who has said he would be willing to open dialogue with America's enemies, including North Korea and Iran. This is an issue Clinton-supporters and conservatives have really criticised him about calling him everything from naive to traitor.

Regarding your question about talking vs. warfare... not necessarily, I was talking about war vs. the status-quo.... but I suppose warfare does tie into the status-quo even though it's simply just a part of it along with the silent-treatment.

I've heard the argument that diplomacy doesn't work and I've seen Carter's failed efforts at diplomacy used as an example against such a stance. I'm trying to see if that's the only reason, because as I mentioned before, we just end up back where we started and we didn't lose anything.

I'm guessing pride is the only standing in the way. Like elementary school where you fear rejection so you don't reach out to someone you dislike even if it's in your best interest to be civil with that person....

Is it that same mentality that we don't want to "stroke their ego" if they snub us.... or is there a non-emotional reason behind opposing diplomacy?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Is it that same mentality that we don't want to "stroke their ego" if they snub us.... or is there a non-emotional reason behind opposing diplomacy?

Of course there is a "non-emotional" reason.....just ask Neville Chamberlain after his experience with Germany in 1938.

Giving legitimacy to a real or potential enemy can not only be counter-productive, it can damage perceptions by allies and lead to fragmented policy and actions. In the case of Obama and the USA, it is general policy that America should speak with one voice when it comes to foreign policy.

From a practical viewpoint and situation dependencies, the US insisted on multilateral "talks" with the DPRK for this very reason (after the Carter/Clinton debacle). Diplomacy happens on several levels, and can often involve an intermediary when formal relations don'tr exist.

Lastly, the oft used good cop - bad cop strategy requires that appearances are as extreme as you imagine, even when it is not the case behind the scenes.

[BC_chick]

In the case of Obama and the USA, it is general policy that America should speak with one voice when it comes to foreign policy.

So are you saying diplomacy should be practiced when Americans are unanimously for it? If so, it sounds like you're setting an impossible criteria for the preconditions of talks since America has never spoken in one voice before and it probably never will.

Diplomacy happens on several levels, and can often involve an intermediary when formal relations don'tr exist.

Okay, that's a what, not a why. I started this thread to understand the why... *why* should America not be involved directly? Why do you feel it's better to have mediators.... is it the your last point (below)?

Lastly, the oft used good cop - bad cop strategy requires that appearances are as extreme as you imagine, even when it is not the case behind the scenes.

If so, that's another what, not a why... why do you feel there needs to be a bad cop? Are you saying the good cop is completely irrelevant or ineffective in achieving a goal?

Because as far as I know, it's the good cop that ends up getting the confession.... no?

Edited May 12, 2008 by BC_chick

[Wilber]

Excuse me but I am going to butt in here.

So are you saying diplomacy should be practiced when Americans are unanimously for it? If so, it sounds like you're setting an impossible criteria for the preconditions of talks since America has never spoken in one voice before and it probably never will.

A government can only speak as one voice whether its citizens are unanimous or not, which they never are.

Okay, that's a what, not a why. I started this thread to understand the why... *why* should America not be involved directly? Why do you feel it's better to have mediators.... is it the your last point (below)?

Intermediaries can often achieve what direct negotiations cannot because there is too much antagonism. Works for individuals and nations alike.

If so, that's another what, not a why... why do you feel there needs to be a bad cop? Are you saying the good cop is completely irrelevant or ineffective in achieving a goal?

Without a bad cop there can be no good cop, only a weenie. Both antagonists are the bad cops which leaves the intermediary free to be the good cop that both can relate to. Although we aren't in the habit of crediting the US in this role that is the function Carter filled with Sadat and Begin.

[bush_cheney2004]

So are you saying diplomacy should be practiced when Americans are unanimously for it? If so, it sounds like you're setting an impossible criteria for the preconditions of talks since America has never spoken in one voice before and it probably never will.

Yes it has.....and purposely so. The Executive Branch is specifically charged with such duties/responsibility, and if only for practical purposes, the other party must know it is dealing/not dealing with the sanctioned authority. The US Congress can influence policy internally with resolutions and the power of the purse.

Okay, that's a what, not a why. I started this thread to understand the why... *why* should America not be involved directly? Why do you feel it's better to have mediators.... is it the your last point (below)?

I didn't say it was better...only that each situation has to be managed on its own merits and risks. There is almost always a back channel no matter what is presented in the media for appearances sake. America is not going to give every two-bit thug equal billing with formal diplomatic relations. State Dept protocol is fussy that way.

If so, that's another what, not a why... why do you feel there needs to be a bad cop? Are you saying the good cop is completely irrelevant or ineffective in achieving a goal?

Because as far as I know, it's the good cop that ends up getting the confession.... no?

No, the good cop does not always get the confession. Sometimes he just confirms that there is no further value in pursuing "diplomacy". And sometimes the bad cop gets the confession too. Also, just because a line of communications has been established doesn't mean that a satisfactory arrangement can be achieved. For instance, in the case of Saddam Hussein, historians will wonder why he played his poker hand so badly.

Edited May 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

With Obama's stance on talking to enemies, this issue seems to be the topic of many conversations, with strong opinions both for and against talking to enemies. Without too much surprise to the visitors on this board, I am all for open dialogue.

For me it's quite simple actually - I use the old "best-case scenario" vs. "worst-case scenario" tool used in decision making:

Best-case scanario: diplomacy prevails.

Worst-case scenario: we're right back where we started.

In other words, there is nothing to lose, and a lot to gain.

I am not trying to be inflammatory, but I really would like to understand the reasoning behind not talking to enemies...

The military-industrial complex has little to gain if diplomacy prevails.

[bush_cheney2004]

The military-industrial complex has little to gain if diplomacy prevails.

And diplomacy has little to gain if the "military-industial complex" fails.

[eyeball]

And diplomacy has little to gain if the "military-industial complex" fails.

As BC Chick said we'd be right back where we started. But this time without the military-industial complex.

There are times when the cost of two steps forward is worth twice the price.

[Remiel]

That reversal does not make much sense depending on how you interpret it. Diplomacy always involves at least two parties with a single outcome. Now, that outcome can be interpreted as being either good or bad by either party, but it is still only one outcome. When you refer to the failure of the military industrial complex, however, you could mean the military industrial complex of just one entity or of several.

So, when you say " the failure of the military industrial complex " if you mean that it fails on only one side, that may be bad for diplomacy. Though, that is not a sure thing I think, since failure could be interpreted as anything less than sufficient power to take out the strongest country and its allies in an all out assault. By that definition, almost every country is a failure, but of course I hardly think that there are no countries that have anything to gain by diplomacy. And of course, if we mean the failure of the military industrial complex across the spectrum, well, I would hardly call no one having sufficient weaponry to destroy its opponents an inopportune occurrence for diplomats. In fact, that sounds rather positive.

Oh, and as for talking to enemies as a general principle, I do not think you can find any really good reason not to do with it. The mistake was not talking to Hitler, it was believing what he said.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Remiel

[eyeball]

That reversal does not make much sense depending on how you interpret it. Diplomacy always involves at least two parties with a single outcome. Now, that outcome can be interpreted as being either good or bad by either party, but it is still only one outcome. When you refer to the failure of the military industrial complex, however, you could mean the military industrial complex of just one entity or of several.

I mean the complex of industrialists, lobbyists, politicians and stock market investors who benefit from producing weapons. There is no such thing as a peace dividend to these.

So, when you say " the failure of the military industrial complex " if you mean that it fails on only one side, that may be bad for diplomacy. Though, that is not a sure thing I think, since failure could be interpreted as anything less than sufficient power to take out the strongest country and its allies in an all out assault. By that definition, almost every country is a failure, but of course I hardly think that there are no countries that have anything to gain by diplomacy. And of course, if we mean the failure of the military industrial complex across the spectrum, well, I would hardly call no one having sufficient weaponry to destroy its opponents an inopportune occurrence for diplomats. In fact, that sounds rather positive.

No kidding. Perhaps Shakespear should have said "the first thing we do, let's kill all the diplomats". I'm just kidding of course.

Edited May 12, 2008 by eyeball

[WIP]

The McCain/Bush argument against talking to the enemy, falls flat when the real picture reveals that the U.S. is negotiating a deal with North Korea (didn't they used to be part of the Axis of Evil?) and Israel is talking to long-time enemy - Syria!

Honestly, if you're already talking to the enemy, how much credibility do you expect to have for criticising Barach Obama when he says the U.S. must be open to having talks with enemies such as Iran?

[bush_cheney2004]

Honestly, if you're already talking to the enemy, how much credibility do you expect to have for criticising Barach Obama when he says the U.S. must be open to having talks with enemies such as Iran?

Obama is changing his tune on this, favoring Israel and rejecting Hamas. Politics is so much fun!

[marcinmoka]

Though we can't forget. 'Speaking with', and 'being soft on' your enemies are not the things.

On that note, I still think McCain would be the best, seeing as he is both pragmatic, experienced and somewhat stubborn.

[HisSelf]

Though we can't forget. 'Speaking with', and 'being soft on' your enemies are not the things.

On that note, I still think McCain would be the best, seeing as he is both pragmatic, experienced and somewhat stubborn.

I agree with your first sentence whole-heartedly, but I don't think McCain would be better than Obama. If you were Iran, or any other of the many Moslem societies that the US is at odds with, who would you be most inclined to talk to shoulder to shoulder? A guy with some Moslem creds who says he wants to talk, or yet another in a long line of American hard-liners who says he wants to bomb?

Iraq needs a regional solution. Iran is not going to sit around and suck its thumb while the US builds a pincer movement on its borders in Afghanistan and Iraq. Anybody who thinks it will is in 'cloud cuckoo land' as Margaret Thatcher used to say.

Here's a map of the region.

Edited June 5, 2008 by HisSelf

[marcinmoka]

I agree with your first sentence whole-heartedly, but I don't think McCain would be better than Obama. If you were Iran, or any other of the many Moslem societies that the US is at odds with, who would you be most inclined to talk to shoulder to shoulder? A guy with some Moslem creds who says he wants to talk, or yet another in a long line of American hard-liners who says he wants to bomb?

Iraq needs a regional solution. Iran is not going to sit around and suck its thumb while the US builds a pincer movement on its borders in Afghanistan and Iraq. Anybody who thinks it will is in 'cloud cuckoo land' as Margaret Thatcher used to say.

Here's a map of the region.

Obama? If he didn't have Dr. B at his side advising him, he would be taken for a ride. Afterall, the road to hell is paved with.....well, you know.

Furthermore, "credibility" & "competency" are radically different in foreign affairs. The way I see it, Obama is like the inversion of the current administration. He seems to think everything can be solved wit the proverbial 'carrots', whereas Bush sought only to use the 'stick'. McCain, unlike them both, seems to appreciate the need for balance between the two.

As per the map....ah....gee, thanks. But your point?

[Kingmaker]

The argument that by speaking with people who oppose you you're "appeasing" is ludicrous and shows either a complete lack of historical knowledge, or a level of deception that indicates a deplorable lack of morality.

Appeasement is when you give in to the demands of an invading power, not when you have diplomatic relations. Negotiation isn't appeasement, discussion isn't appeasement, we could speak with the soviets, why the hell should we be incapable of speaking to Iran?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Appeasement is when you give in to the demands of an invading power, not when you have diplomatic relations. Negotiation isn't appeasement, discussion isn't appeasement, we could speak with the soviets, why the hell should we be incapable of speaking to Iran?

Hmmm...then why is the very term "appeasement" associated with Neville Chamberlain (Munich Agreement in 1938)? The UK was not invaded.

You mean that Chamberlain was right all along?

[M.Dancer]

Hmmm...then why is the very term "appeasement" associated with Neville Chamberlain (Munich Agreement in 1938)? The UK was not invaded.

You mean that Chamberlain was right all along?

Yet czechoslovakia was....

[Peter F]

Hmmm...then why is the very term "appeasement" associated with Neville Chamberlain (Munich Agreement in 1938)? The UK was not invaded.

You mean that Chamberlain was right all along?

Of course he was. What did he give up? Nothing. What did he gain? Time for re-armament. He probably should have 'appeased' on Poland too for all the good it did anyone by declaring war at that time.

But on the other hand - The whole danged thing was a trainwreck from beginning to end. I don't think it would have mattered in the least wether Chamberlain held fast at Munich or appeased at Munich.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But on the other hand - The whole danged thing was a trainwreck from beginning to end. I don't think it would have mattered in the least wether Chamberlain held fast at Munich or appeased at Munich.

Thanks for that, but the contest concerned the word "appeasement" and associations to present day B. Hussein Obama. Just trying to work out the kinks for future mudslinging. I agree that we know how that trainwreck worked out.

Edited June 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

Of course he was. What did he give up? Nothing. What did he gain? Time for re-armament. He probably should have 'appeased' on Poland too for all the good it did anyone by declaring war at that time.

But on the other hand - The whole danged thing was a trainwreck from beginning to end. I don't think it would have mattered in the least wether Chamberlain held fast at Munich or appeased at Munich.

Sounds like you might want to brush up on pre second world war history. While neville is the poster boy for appreasemnt, appeasement didn't begin Munich and end with neville waving the documents claiming Peace in Our Time...

The Appeasement of Nazi Gemany started the day the Allies decided not to enforce the Versailles treaty. The appeasement of Iran began the day that the UN allowed Iran to violate the NPT with impunity.

[Peter F]

Sounds like you might want to brush up on pre second world war history. While neville is the poster boy for appreasemnt, appeasement didn't begin Munich and end with neville waving the documents claiming Peace in Our Time...

The Appeasement of Nazi Gemany started the day the Allies decided not to enforce the Versailles treaty. The appeasement of Iran began the day that the UN allowed Iran to violate the NPT with impunity.

Fine. It began then. You're point being what?

[eyeball]

But on the other hand - The whole danged thing was a trainwreck from beginning to end. I don't think it would have mattered in the least wether Chamberlain held fast at Munich or appeased at Munich.

I wonder if it would have mattered if Gavrilo Princip had missed? I doubt it. The great powers simply would have found something else to fight about.