May 20, 2008
The Limits of Diplomacy (Armstrong Williams)
In 2004 a Dutch filmmaker named Theo Van Gogh helped Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament, produce a 10-minute film about the oppression of women in Muslim communities. Ali, an immigrant from Somalia, was herself a Muslim and had done a number of scholarly papers on the subject; the film was a continuation of that project. Because of the film, fatwas were issued calling for the assassination of Van Gogh and Ali. Ali was hounded out of parliament and evicted from her apartment because her neighbors felt her presence put them in danger.
On Nov. 4, 2004, Theo Van Gogh was bicycling to work when Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born son of Moroccan immigrants, shot him. The first shot did not kill Van Gogh. He pleaded with his assailant: "Don't do it! Don't do it! Mercy! Mercy! He said: "Surely we can talk about this:" Mr. Bouyeri (who at the time was living on welfare payments from the Dutch government) had a response. He fired 20 additional shots into Van Gogh's body, stabbed him several times, and slit his throat. Then he pinned a five-page letter to his chest with the knife. The letter was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and foretold the destruction of America, Europe and the Netherlands.
Sen. Barack Obama (and former president Jimmy Carter) subscribes to the Western elite's most unshakeable article of faith — the belief in peace and reconciliation through dialogue. He has said diplomacy is the way to solve the problem of terrorism and that he will meet with the leaders of states that sponsor terrorism without preconditions. But Europeans have been trying peace and reconciliation for generations. It is not working.
Why does he present this failed strategy as a change we should embrace? All this strategy has done for Europe is convince the terrorists that Westerners are doormats who will participate in the destruction of their own countries. As John Bolton has noted, diplomacy is a tool, not a strategy. Surrender is not an option. We are fighting for our lives and the continuance of Western civilization. Should we elect a president whose response to the most serious threat of our time is appeasement?
Visit www.armstrongwilliams.com
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 16 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Here is James Baker on the subject:
http://www.thevaneljournal.com/2008/05/james-baker-talking-to-enemy-is-not.html
Comment by Theard — May 20, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Armstrong, great column. The sooner it's universally recognized that Islam when practiced faithfully is incompatible with Western Civilization the sooner we can deal with the problem. Talking to fanatics is useless, there is only one language they understand and it ain't diplomacy.
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Theard, I haven't listened to the clip but James Baker is a spaghetti-spined "realist" who is almost worse than the left-wing surrendocrats. He truly is an authority on appeasement, from vast personal experience. His participation in the Iraq study group alone says quite a bit about him.
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
I beg to differ, I thought Baker did an excellent job as Sec of State for Bush's dad.
"You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well," an animated Baker said. "Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."
Here is what he said:
Baker noted that when he was Secretary of State for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time."
The bipartisan Iraq study group provided sound advice that was discarded by the current administration.
Comment by Theard — May 20, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Appeasement can best be described and defined as the act that Ollie North employed for Reagan's white house when Reagan negotiated and sold arms for the release of Our hostages, to Iran no less. According to "Igor The Neocon", that makes Reagan a leftist appeaser, either that or Igor is on the loonatic fringe of the right. I choose the ladder.
Comment by Lester — May 20, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
I will ask the same question that Obama asked of McCain and Bush. What are you afraid of? Iran spends 4.8 billion dollars on defense, while our defense budget is over a half a trillion dollars. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that talking won't make Halliburton any more money? Are you afraid that Boeing can't sell more tankers, McDonald-Douglas can't sell more fighters? What are you afraid of? In the 50s,60s,70s and 80s the Soviet Union could blow us off the map and we could do the same to them but we talked to them and we are still here. Are you so afraid of talking with someone that we could crush with a push of a button, that we have had to forgo our civil liberties, to have our government spy on us and lie us into war. What are you cowards afraid of. Real American are not afraid to talk and real Americans are tried of constant war and policies that strip us of our rights.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 20, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Theard, the positive consequences of Bush Sr's as well as Bill Clinton's diplomacy are zero. They sat down, they talked, they sat down, and talked some more. The surrendocrats of all parties refuse to recognize the importance of leverage other than the leverage the US has over Israel.
The Iraq study group claimed that the situation in Iraq was "deteriorating" (what Einsteins!) and the solution was direct talks with Iran and Syria while orchestrating a large troop pullback. If there was ever a plan for a complex and humiliating defeat, that was it.
The fact remains: Bush disregarded it completely, the surge followed, and the situation dramatically improved. Today the Iraqi forces WITHOUT ANY AMERICAN SUPPORT marched into Sadr City and peacefully (after dismantling 40 roadside bombs) took control of three quarters of it as well as Sadr's former headquaters. And you're trying to tell me about the wisdom of Jim Baker and the Iraq study group.
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Igor;
You forgot that under Bush Sr. and Bill, North Korea didn't build and explode a nuclear device. Under W, they did. Iran wasn't in the market for nuclear weapons under Bush Sr. and Bill, but undr W, they are. Tell me some more positive new from W. You make me laugh.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 20, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
#6 Mike,
I agree. The problem is that too many people here believe that Washington rules the world, and that means our leaders don't sit down for talks, they just issue edicts.
Maybe that was true a while ago. But it certainly not true now when this country owes other countries more money than can ever be repaid in our lifetimes.
We must talk now! If our leaders don't talk to those we disagree with, they will seem like spoilers, constantly threatening to blow up the world with the only things that we have left: our nuclear arsenal.
People here have to realize that the U-S does not occupy the globe alone - there are others on the planet who also have rights.
Comment by barbara day — May 20, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
The first Gulf war was successfully prosecuted and it decimated Iraq's military–yet left Sadam in power to serve as a counterweight to Iran. That war had clear achievable objectives.
You say the surge is working..by what metric exactly? troops are still dying and bombs contine to go off.
And the nonsense about not speaking with Iran and syria? we have been speaking to Iran about Iraq and negotiated with some militias. In factm that Sadr City incursion u referred to was ONLY possible after Iran negotiated a peace deal.
Truce negotiated by Iran, then Iraqi troops move in without resistance. Most of these Iraqi troops have tribal affiliations
Comment by Theard — May 20, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Mike, you forgot to mention that North Korea didn't explode a nuclear device under George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and even FDR. But logic isn't your strong suit. If you keep enabling enemies, feeding them, supplying them with oil, and agreeing to their deceptions sooner or later they will strike.
Comment by Igor R. — May 21, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Theard, Saddam was indeed left as a counterweight to Iran. He could've enjoyed an peaceful semi-retirement if he didn't start behaving in a belligerent manner, kicking out the nuclear inspectors, playing games when they were forced back in, shooting at American planes, and doing everything possible to slip out from the sanctions regime. I don't know why you don't tell the rest of the story in making your argument.
You claim that essentially if any troops continue to die and any bombs go off that's a "metric" in itself and the surge has failed. I will tell you some other metrics: the trends in deaths, both American, Iraqi military and civilian (and don't tell me that the pickup in them during the anti-Sadrist campaign is indicative of anything other than there was a war against the Sadrist that's now being won). Other metrics: NBC quietly stopped referring to Iraq as a "civil war", Harry Reid stopped talking of the war being lost, Nancy Pelosi while in Iraq was forced to admit progress in order to even meet with Maliki, although the duplicitous witch backtracked back on US soil. The refugees are returning in record numbers, outside of Sadr City and the Basrah casualties Iraq is safer than DC.
And if you think that Iran which was desperately trying to humiliate Americans in the Green Zone and in the south of Iraq agreed to any peace deals because of negotiations or the goodness of their heart, let's talk about that Brooklyn bridge again.
Comment by Igor R. — May 21, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
In your assessment of the facts, it appears that you omit some as well. Saddam was never a threat and every time he got out of hand, a couple of bombing runs took care of it.
While it is true that violence has subsided-our troops continue to die and bombs still explode. Iraq is nowhere near self- governance today than it was 5 years ago.
The reduction of violence is a result of brokered deals with militias and through back channel talks with Iran. Yet we don’t negotiate with terrorist, right Igor? I’ll leave the Iran-contra affair alone for now.
The recent uptick in violence involved two Shiite militias, both funded by Iran, and subsequent ceasefire that followed was negotiated by none other than Iran. It had nothing to do with the goodness of their heart, rather a flexing their newfound muscles, courtesy of our misadventure in Iraq. It’s a constant reminder of what can happen if we escalate the war with 140K of our troops next door.
There is no military solution to our Iraq mess–only a negotiated peace that involves all of the major players in the region, including Iran. They want to be a major player–let them prove it, split Iraq into three regions and let the Saudis help the Sunnis, Iran can help the Shia and Kurds are already autonomous.
This whole appeasement debacle is centered around the neocon philosophy that the US is superior and certain countries need to submit…unless of course u have a nuclear bomb–then u do negotiate albeit via party talks
Lastly, just so you know. We are in fact superior but I feel that our military might should be used in conjunction with smart, tough diplomacy to maintain the moral high ground in all that we do. That is what the world demands from us and what we must provide as the only global superpower
Comment by Theard — May 21, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Igor;
Under the above named Presidents, none of them were as stupid as W. that is why Iran didn't need the bomb. Under W, they have to protect themselves. If someone invaded your neighbor's home, wouldn't make sense to be prepared in case they want to invade yours.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 21, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Meanwhile in the Middle East, Israel is in talks with Syria amd Hezbollah just got veto power in Lebanon.
Comment by Theard — May 21, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Mike, yes fighting enemies makes them and other enemies try to defend themselves. Excellent observation!
Comment by Igor R. — May 22, 2008 @ 2:21 pm