Proof that the U.S. Still Needs a Lesson in Diplomacy

Just reading the first few paragraphs of this column made me think about the exact reason why many nations hate the self-proclaimed "Free World."

Ed Rollins, a frequent contributor to CNN, states in the highlights of his column that Obama says "winning over U.S. foes isn't an important foreign policy goal."  He further goes on to state that President Bush and his team, while making some mistakes, was in office during 09/11 and kept this country safe throughout both his terms, and then explores what happened during the UN National Security Council meeting last week.

*Looking around* First of all, I thought we were past the "everyone play nice in the sandbox" negotiations.  Mr. Rollins, we're dealing with adult men here.  If they have power in their hands, they'll want the big toys that everyone else has, and saying "NO!  BAD LEADER!  PUT IT DOWN!" in your best Lewis Black imitation is only going to make them want it more.  Let's get real here.

At the UNNSC meeting, the 15 countries' representatives approved a six-page measure that would encourage a nuclear weapon-free world.  And who was gathered around that table?  China. France. The Russian Federation.  Britain.  U.S.  No one's giving up those nuclear bad boys.  Neither is Pakistan, Israel or India.  Furthermore, Mr. Rollins suggests that the real goal of the meeting should have been to admonish North Korea and Iran for creating nuclear weapons, and to stop and desist immediately.  France's Nicolas Sarkozy even went as far as calling the Security Council "weak" for not being more forceful about this, especially with Iran flexing their nuclear muscles by testing short- and long-range missiles during the same timeframe of the meeting.  Obama states:

How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them? ... We live in the real world, not a virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.

So, Obama is trying to figure out a way to negotiate and be the diplomat.  Something that Bush never really tried to do, even though he had some brilliant minds on his advisory team.  Every time that man opened his mouth, it was stubborn, tight-fisted "THERE ARE WMDs OUT THERE" that squandered whatever steam he had going for the revenge that this country wanted after watching thousands of innocents die at the hands of religious fanatics.

To be sure, I did not mind that we went to war.  Diplomacy in 2001 was not what we needed.  09/11 was an act of war, and we went in with guns blazing.  But eventually we strayed from the path while trying to find the rightful enemy.  We strayed from looking for who we needed to, tripped over our own feet, landed in Iraq and thought we could take this on, too.  Now Obama has a mess in Afghanistan to start all over, which is where we should have stayed in the first place to look for these people.

But I digress, as usual.  Let's get back to diplomacy.  Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Diplomacy:  "The art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states."

Nowhere does it say that it is a means to being chummy the enemy.  No matter how despicable these people are, if you want to talk to them, you've got to play a tiny bit nice.  Look what Bill Clinton did to release those two young ladies from North Korea - he went over there, posed for a picture with the Oriental Elvis (I'm trying to be nice but it's HARD) and got those girls back home to their families.  Kim Jong-il is a bastard and a nut, but that doesn't mean we can just brush them off over and over and shake our fingers at them, because it'll keep pushing them.  They have control over millions of people, and if we succeed at making them more angry at us, they'll keep going in the wrong direction.

For anyone who has kids:  Don't we need positive reinforcement more?  Granted, I'm short on that sometimes with my 4-year-old daughter.  It's easier to yell and say "KNOCK IT OFF" than to encourage them when they are being good and staying out of your hair.  Diplomacy is kind of like that.  We see these other leaders treating their people and countries like garbage, but bullying them relentlessly will not mend their ways.  As long as we haven't been dealt an act of war, we need to figure out a way to start talking to these people.  It's not pleasant, but diplomacy never is.  Dirty and hard work, that is.  But there is no diplomacy if no one is listening.

Let me be clear:  09/11 was an act of war, and I think the response was appropriate.  I think it was misguided as the war went on, spreading ourselves too thin, and I think Obama is right to focus back on Afghanistan and put Iraq to the side now.  But for Iran and North Korea, who have yet to bomb us, we have the power on our side.  We don't need to be bosom buddies with Ahmadinejad and Jong-il.  We don't have to share our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with them and tell them all our little secrets.  But we've got to find a way to keep communication open so that they will actually listen when we speak.  What is war, really, than a child who tunes out an ever-berating parent to do their own thing without regard for anyone else?