Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Still More on Negotiations [Andy McCarthy]
Re my suggestion that we include bin Laden in the talks, readers are pointing out to me that this is ridiculous because Michael Ledeen has pointed out that Osama has probably gone off to that Big Orgy in the Sky. This strikes me as terribly insensitive.
The dead, after all, have their point of view. And what about putting yourself in the other guy's shoes Rule One for the successful negotiator? Won't we all be dead someday? Wouldn't it just be another case of unilateral American cowboy arrogance to refuse to negotiate with someone just because he's, er, vitally-challenged?
Where, I ask you, are the moderates? When did diplomacy become a dirty word? Why should we be unwilling to lie, cheat and dissemble in our dealings with the departed? Aren't they human beings just like the rest of us except, y'know, for that whole not-breathing thing? Don't they want stability in Iraq every bit as much as the Iranians, the Syrians, and the entire "international community" do?
02/28 02:28 PM
Happy Talk Keep Talking Happy Talk [Mark Steyn]
As it happens, Andy, more than a few eminent types have already proposed getting Osama, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar to the table. The late Mo Mowlam, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, advocated talks with al-Qaeda, and more recently Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa, argued for Canadian talks with the Taliban. In the latter case, I suggested sending Mr Layton as chief negotiator off to Waziristan and, if he comes back alive, we could schedule a second summit.
The problem with the Iran-Syria talks is that our enemies understand that democracies would rather talk than do anything else, and that, in Washington and London and Paris, the very fact that talking is taking place is seen as as progress, regardless of what youre talking about or whether the talking is leading to anything. In fact, Iran appreciates more clearly than we do that for the west talking is the end rather than the means. Which is why they didnt let the minor inconvenience of having to show up for get-togethers with EU negotiators every few weeks distract them from ploughing full-speed ahead on the old nuclear program.
02/28 03:16 PM
Trying Again [Andrew Stuttaford]
Michael, it hasn't really been "tried before" unless you regard all diplomatic conversations as being essentially the same. Arguing that we shouldn't talk "now" because it didn't work "then" is in many ways the same as arguing that early military defeats are *by definition* reason to give up on a war. Sometimes talks work, often they don't, but that doesn't mean they should not be tried and tried and tried again. Does "talking" preclude other actions being taken at the same time? Of course not.
Your point about being sure that we are negotiating with the right people is, of course correct. One of the best ways to identify the "right" people in a country is by holding talks such as these. Will this involve a certain amount of trial and error? Yup, but so what?
02/28 03:28 PM
The only solution (now or later) will end up being some sort of discussion... just need to figure how many people need to die and how much time we waste before that happens. Attacking Iran or destroying their nuclear sites probably won't create a climate of "Oh well, let's try solar power..." in Iran.
would you (if president) talk directly with Iran? Would you launch a pre-emptive (arguably anyway) strike? Would you obey the laws Iran is accused of breaking first? None of the above?
Making nice to the terrorists will not make them be nice to us
The Clinton years proved that
Bombing civillians makes terrorists love us! In fact, they need us to be international terrorists/criminals to attract followers... if everybody left well enough alone it would tougher to drum up so much support.
I'm not in favor of pre-emptive attacks, quite the contrary. The problem as I see it is that the left ignors all the overtures and attempts at making nice, then when the line is crossed as in Iraq, scream 'unilateral.' Talking has its place, as does action. The bad guys get it, the tinfoils do not.
Re: Thoroughly Despicable [Andy McCarthy]
Thanks for filling me in on the roughness of the world, Andrew. I'd missed that up until now.
Actually, you've stumbled, however inadvertently, onto something sensible. My sensitivity aside, the experience of any experienced prosecutor underlines the silliness of your position. In most cases, it is perfectly reasonable to negotiate a disposition even though defendants are generally shady and often immoral characters, and even though some defense counsel and some prosecutors are unscrupulous. Trials can be ruinous for both sides they are very expensive for the state and conviction at them can increase the sentence immensely. Both sides have a strong interest in avoiding them if an accommodation acceptable to both can be found.
What you don't seem to grasp is that what is true most of the time is not true all of the time. There are times when you never negotiate. This is not quantum physics. If you are dealing with a particularly evil defendant, and your job is to take him off the street for as long as possible, there's nothing to talk about there is nothing he could offer that you would accept, and if he wants to plead guilty (i.e., surrender), he can do that without negotiations. By offering him negotiations, you plant the seed in his head that maybe you are not as resolved as he may otherwise have thought. That bucks him up, and makes it much more likely you will have to have a drawn-out, ugly trial rather than an unconditional surrender.
Similarly, if he and his counsel are completely untrustworthy, such that it is a waste of time, or worse, to have a conversation, there is, again, no point in talking.
Finally, and relatedly, it makes no sense to negotiate when there is no mutuality of interest. In the case of Iran, we want to avoid war and have a stable Iraq; they, to the contrary, are already at war with us, view a world without the U.S. and Israel as much-sought and achievable goal, and want Iraq to be as unstable as it takes for us to lose and leave. It would be as if I, as the prosecutor, entered a plea negotiation with the aim of resolving the case without trial, while the defense attorney, with no intention of pleading guilty, entered the negotiation just to get insight about my evidence, take my measure as a lawyer, and try to get me to say something that could be exploited for propaganda purposes in the eventual, unavoidable trial. That is a negotiation to which only a foolish prosecutor agrees.
02/28 04:44 PM
Bombing civillians makes terrorists love us! In fact, they need us to be international terrorists/criminals to attract followers... if everybody left well enough alone it would tougher to drum up so much support.
Gee, I was going to say this sounds like a response to RSR, I see it is.
I do the knack to tap into the love and tolerance of liberals everywhere.
yes you do. But it does tend to cut down on discussion, which might help all. For the record, you rarely post links, columns, etc. that I disagree with, but it would be beneficial to use it as a start to discussion, which is where your interpretation would be beneficial.
A discusion with most libs lasts only fpr about three or four posts. Then they fall back on the same old same old - personal insults and crude remarks
However, I will admit, it is getting easier to get the libs to meltdown
All the overtures? Grab a news source from outside the US, and look at the preference for talk or action exhibited by Washington... action was the goal. Talking? Overtures to make nice? More like poking Iraq with a stick and when it didn't bite, kicking the shit out of it.
Exhausting diplomatic options? Not America's style. Look at Afghanistan.
Re: Talking [Andy McCarthy]
Mark, it's very simple you can imagine the conversation by reading both Andrew's contributions to this discussion and Iran's public statements to date:
U.S.: We are a great power, not boyscouts. We talked to the Soviet Union a great power with 10,000 nuclear missiles pointed at us and our allies. We even talked to that nasty Chairman Mao, dictator of a rising super-power with over a billion citizens. So, naturally, we must talk with a pissant with no missiles pointed at us and our allies which is waging a 30-year terrorist war based on an unbending conviction that America must be destroyed. Why, even Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton say so. So, que pasa mullah minister?
Iran: Death to America, insha Allah.
U.S.: Funny you should say that. Why, on the way over here, we were just saying that our goal, ultimately, should be to hasten the end of the Iranian theocracy. So we figured, y'know, if holding talks can, however theoretically, be a potential weapon in our armory to achieve that goal, well, golly, count us in. I mean, unless you can convince us otherwise.
Iran: Well, we'd love to try to convince you otherwise, but, as you know, we see a world without America and Israel as something that is achievable in the short term. That's why we've been having Hezbollah and the IRGC kill your soldiers for 30 years. That's why we're working on those nukes. Now, we could pretend otherwise we could pretend that we're here for fruitful talks aimed at a settlement. But, as you may have heard, aside from being thoroughly despicable, we're also totally untrustworthy. Why would you believe us if we said any such thing?
U.S.: Well, we wouldn't. And, to be honest, our purpose here is to lie, cheat and dissemble our way through the whole revolting process.
Iran: I hear you. So, lemme get this straight. You want us gone?
U.S.: Yeah.
Iran: And we want you gone?
U.S.: Right.
Iran: And you're a great power?
U.S. Uh-huh.
Iran: And we're nothing like the USSR and Mao's China?
U.S.: Hah! Yeah, you could say that.
Iran: And your thing is you don't want to have war and you want Iraq stable?
U.S.: Yup.
Iran: And our thing is we've been at war with you for decades, we're still at war with you, we're gonna be at war with you until you're gone, and just you being in Iraq is reason enough for us to keep screwing with Iraq.
U.S.: Right.
Iran: And you're not gonna believe a word we say?
U.S.: True.
Iran: And we have no reason to believe a word you say?
U.S.: Exactly.
Iran: And we're having this conversation because ...?
U.S.: Beats me. Er, no, I mean, of course ... we're having this conversation because diplomacy often involves dealing with those regimes opposed to us. Sure, that can be mucky, but so what? Refusing to recognize that fact isn't foreign policy, it's a hissy fit. Wouldn't want to have a hissy fit.
Iran: OK, so you've recognized that fact and you're not having a hissy fit over a few dead American troops. That, after all, is foreign policy. What now, though? What do we do for the mucky part? Why are we here?
U.S.: Er ... Well, uh ... this has been very helpful, don'tcha think? I mean, we're talking, right? Talking is progress, no? Didn't Chamberlain talk to Hitler oh, sorry, bad example. Didn't Carter send Brzezinski to talk to you guys oops, another bad example. But you get my drift, right?
Iran: We sure do ...
02/28 08:29 PM
