I’m sorry, how is that a refutation of the statement that 90% of the Iraq war coalition deaths were Americans? Would it be too much to ask you to start making sense?
It’s not a matter of being “capable”; it’s a matter of looking at reality. With the current state of politics in the U.S., EITHER Bush or Kerry will win the election. There is no 3rd-party candidate with anywhere near enough support to win. The SITUATION is “either-or”, not my thinking.
So I take it you admit that Bush’s diplomatic skills are far, far worse than Kerry’s? Even if you DO think that Kerry has made some diplomatic blunders (which I don’t believe to be true), Kerry’s still the better choice.
To most Europeans he looks like a cowboy.
In the US a ‘cowboy’ means something like the white version of the noble savage. In Europe, however, the meaning of ‘cowboy’ is more like an armed, dangerous, lawless ignoramus with an attitude.
More precisely, France stated that she would cast her veto on this particular resolution. At first, the US admnistration still wanted to hold a vote because they hoped the resolution could still get a majority of the votes, or even, in the best case scenario, the special majority required for a resolution to pass. In this case, the US admin could then say that, at least they had the moral support of most of the security council, and that the resolution didn’t pass only because of a “technical issue” (the french veto, no required “super-majority”).
Strong lobbying on the “weakest” members of the security council ensued, including a sgnificant level of arm twisting by both sides (I mentionned a number of time the case of an african country who was threatened by both the US and France with respectively not getting an IMF loan and not getting an EU grant nor French military aid if they voted the “wrong” way).
By the way, one of the reasons why Chirac publically announced early on that France would veto this resolution no matter what other countries would do was that the “undecided” (or often unwilling to decide) countries would have the certainty they wouldn’t be left ultimately in the displeasant situation of stating they would vote against the US while France would finally decide to let the resolution pass.
Ultimately, it became obvious that the US wouldn’t get a majority at the UNSC, most probably not even a simple majority of the countries actually casting a vote (most probably several countries would have abstained). Rather than facing this indisputable rejection of the US proposal, the american administration choose to renounce to its resolution.
Your claim was that 90% of casualties were from one country, ergo the coalition was bogus. I was pointing out that by that logic, the WWII alliance was also fraudulent. Not that I equate the two; but I was pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.
Well, that’s just it.
In opposition to what some have assumed, I don’t think it was okay for Rumfeld to dis France et al as “Old Europe.” There is some truth to it, in the sense that the current engines of economic and demographic growth in Europe are elsewhere, and it had at least the justification that those nations were at the moment opposing US policy, and I’m sure it felt good to say it.
But on the whole, I’d call it unnecessary and counterproductive. I was hoping for better from Kerry.
Our involvement in WWII was clearly in self-defense, and clearly in step with our allies. We were not the aggressor. It is uneccessary to further justify that war. The two situations are not in any way analagous. Honestly, I can’t believe you would make such a weak argument.
I asked you if you thought Bush has done worse, and you responded by accusing others of mis-stating your position, then proceeding to waffle on your answer. If you admit that Bush has done worse, must you not admit that Kerry has done better?
Oh, and besides which - the numbers in WWII were the other way around. Obviously I wouldn’t be criticizing Bush for failing in his coalition-building if WE had 10% and the OTHER countries had 90%. Duh.
To deal with the side issue first, and repeat what you may have missed: “Your claim was that 90% of casualties were from one country, ergo the coalition was bogus. I was pointing out that by that logic, the WWII alliance was also fraudulent. Not that I equate the two; but I was pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.”
Your objections as to who was the aggressor, etc. are off the point. If the unequal casualty rates make a coalition invlaid, then the WWII coalition was invalid.
You are free to say that there are other criteria by which you judge coalitions, and by which tests Bush’s fails; I might even agree with you. The point was simply that you were using a faulty litmus test.
As to the main point:
As things stand now, it looks like Bush has done badly. I can’t say he’s done worse since Kerry hasn’t been president, so their situations aren’t analogous.
Kerry is obviously much more hep to the whole summits-and-treaties approach, but I don’t accept the idea that those things in and of themselves constitute effective diplomacy. Effective diplomacy is getting people to do what you want them to do (or at least some of it) without having to pull out a gun. Summits and treaties may help achieve that goal, but they may just as easily impede it (i.e. agreements that aren’t honored, endless “talks” that do nothing but stall, etc.)
Nor is the approval of foreign leaders and/or populaces the goal; they are desirable mostly insofar as it will make them easier to deal with, but they are not goals in themselves. I can make myself the most popular guy in the neighborhood by giving away all my stuff; but that popularity will end about a week after my stuff’s all gone.
Until Kerry’s in office, it’s hard to say how effective he’d be at diplomacy. That’s why I look at these kinds of statements and wonder.
In a perfect world Kerry would have come to you for your reasoned and stinging critique of the manner in which Bush has treated our allies in going to war in Iraq. I agree that Kerry could have done a better job. I also believe that Kerry will do a very creditable job in the foreign relations arena if he is elected.
The problem is that he must first get elected. In the current political atmosphere, reasoned critiques are practically worthless. Kerry needs to hammer away at the Iraq war as it is perceived as a weak point. He needs to make those points but reasoned critiques will not make them, mores the pity. Pithy little sound bites are what he needs. The catchier the better.
So while Kerry really shouldn’t have approached the matter in the way in which he did, in my opinion he had little choice.
Don’t buy it. The people Kerry needs to persuade are not the ardent left but the center. More to the point, you are setting up a false dichotomy.
“PM Allawi is doing the best he can, but President Bush has dealt him a bad hand. I want to give him the cards to help him win.”
“There’s no doubt that Tony Blair and John Howard and our other partners have been great freinds to our nation; but there’s no reason they have to be our only freinds.”
There ya go, 2 soundbites thought up in about 2 minutes.
Wonderful. Very polite. I truly like them. I would love to hear them. But I can’t as they are lost in the noise. What was that you say? Something about Iraq I think.
I really and truly do believe it would be a great thing if the candidates had a discourse that was conducted on this level. But until someone with a hell of a lot more charisma than these two stiffs comes along, someone that can hold the populace’s attention without needed to resort to cognitive dissonance and bare knuckled marketing, we are stuck with the Jerry Springer soundbite bitchslap contest. Lucky us.
If you have been paying attention you will recall that Kerry gets pasted for his ‘nuance’. Frankly, its a quality that I prize. But in the current climate, nuance comes off as weak, ineffectual, wishy washy, flip floppy, etc. Not that it actually is, but that is the way that it is portrayed.
So I ask you, if it comes down to a situation in which a majority of people who actually vote and who are susceptible to persuasion through soundbites (given enough repetition), and one candidate makes a point of using soundbites effectively and the other sticks with nuanced statements that are difficult to use as a soundbite in any effective manner, what will be the outcome?
It is easy to make nuanced statements/critiques. You did a fine job yourself. However, these types of statements are not effective in persuading the consumers american politics and won’t be used wherever more points can be made using a more concise statement (however tactless). Blaming Kerry for making a valid critique in a rude manner is understandable as at least I expect more from him (I want more from the other guy, but I don’t really expect it any more), but it doesn’t make it any less necessary for Kerry to actually do it.
Sorry, but I don’t think either of my little slogans are very nuanced. They’re bumper-sticker level; the second would be a good debate zinger.
Certainly the latter is every bit as pithy as “coalition of the coerced and bribed.” More relevant is the fact that while his statement plays well with the far left, my line would play better with the center. It’s a positive rather than a negative, and it doesn’t push away the I-supported-the-war-but-Bush-F*ed-it-up people Kerry needs.
If Kerry wanted to get really ugly, he could say something about “Sometimes when we have a lot to drink, we can say things that hurt our freinds. But then we sober up and our freinds don’t hold it against us. I think when we come to our senses we’ll find a lot of people we’ve pushed away in the last three years will be there to help.”
I can’t think of a much lower blow on W than that; but as hard as it is on Bush, it doesn’t touch the allies, and indeed it casts Tony Blair as the sympathetic freind who sticks by us when we’re assholes.
I could think of plenty more; more to the point, Kerry’s people could.
I’m sure they could. Its just that from the campaign’s view, statements in question work reasonably well in getting point across and give the American voting public a soundbite to chew on. I think that Kerry will be able to smooth the ruffled feathers of our allies if he is elected and if he is not, Bush can make jokes about Kerry to the Polish PM to ease the tensions.
I’m not really trying to say that you are wrong here as I agree with your last few posts. I’m just saying that Kerry’s statements, while not up to the standard set by Mr. Deeds, aren’t going to have any lasting negative effect.
Furt, that’s nonsense. What you are trying to do is the very definition of a disingenuous argument. You know perfectly well what I was saying, and you are trying to twist my words in some bizarre perversion of logic. Please listen carefully: THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE NOT ANALAGOUS. THEREFORE, FACTORS THAT MIGHT TEND TO MAKE THE CURRENT IRAQ “COALITION” FARCICAL WOULD NOT NECESSARILY APPLY TO WWII.
Honestly, I’m a little disappointed that you stooped to this level.
Furt, I’m not gonna play little “gotcha” games with you. Please stop this. I really think you can do better than this.
Please stop with the strawman arguments. It’s getting really, really, really, really annoying.
Who said approval was the goal? What’s with all the strawmen today? The goal is (1) Help with the Iraq situation, and (2) Trust - not approval, but trust. To effectively deal with other nations, you have to let them know that they can count on consistency from you. They simply have no incentive to work with us if they have no way of knowing we won’t just stab them in the back at any moment. I don’t know what the “giving away” thing is supposed to be analagous to, but it’s a relatively simple fact that if you tell your allies that they’re irrelevant and you’re just going to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and tell them not to bother applying for contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq, and then come crawling back begging them for help, it’s not going to be very effective.
The very fact that Kerry does not endorse such a myopic foreign policy ALREADY gives him the advantage over Bush. He may not succeed in his goals, but he’s already ahead of Bush right out of the starting gate.
Fine. I’ll accept that you have trouble separating disparate elements of an argument. Don’t apply for law school. Personally, I’ve liked it when people on these boards have pointed out my own (frequent) failures in logic, even on tangential points, as that’s how I’ve learned. YMMV.
Nobody here, yet, nor did I say they did. Don’t be so defensive.
Nothing; it’s simply a way of elaborating the point that diplomatic success does not equate to popularity as some (No, I’m not saying you personally) seem to imply. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t assume someone’s shoving it on you.
Yes, bad thing, that.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the premise that rejecting someone else’s dumb idea automatically means your idea is better. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to any question, and the odds are at least as good you’re just being dumb in a different way.
I imagine that our allies will get over it. Rhetoric far more heated than this has been overlooked in the past. Early in his term our president had harsh words for the Chinese upon whom we are now relying for assistance to resolve various North Korea related issues. Mutual interest usually overcomes election year rhetoric. I don’t imagine Bush would repudiate aid from Germany in Iraq just because Germany’s leader ran away from him during the German elections.
And the WWII analogy is pretty ridiculous.
I think the basic difference is that the Bush administration’s actions and statements about our allies have revealed a basic arrogance and disrepect towards our friends, while Kerry’s statements are at heart a criticism of that arrogance and disrespect and resulting diplomatic failure. And I believe our allies are smart enough to be able to tell the difference.
You said approval is not a goal in itself, and I pointed out that nobody said it was. What’s defensive about that? Unless you were just saying that for no particular reason, I fail to see your point.
I don’t think anyone implied that. And I still don’t see the analogue of “giving things away”.
Well, I believe that being at least willing to work with our allies is better. YMMV.
Exactly. Furt is trying to simultaneously advance both the notion that it’s not about “making friends”, AND the notion that other countries are going to have their “feelings hurt” so much by Kerry’s “insults”, that they will refuse to work with him. Mutually contradictory ideas, IMO. It’s NOT about being a “popularity contest”, and consequently, I find it unlikely that anyone’s going to permanently grab their marbles and run home just because Kerry made some offhand reference to them being “coerced”. The criticism was leveled at Bush, not our allies.
I specifically said from the start I thought it would blow over and do no lasting harm. The issue was that Kerry’s doing it at all, when it was IMO so unnecessary and easily avoided did not reflect well on him and his diplomatic insticts and skills.
It also suggests to me something I’ve increasingly seen; that we’ve (both parties) politicized our foreign policy, where people begin to think of certain nations as aligned with our parties rather than for or against our nation as a whole: i.e. France is allied with the Democrats, “New Europe” with the Republicans, etc. I find this troubling.