Fraudulent Diplomacy

PS: Forgive the typos. I was rushing out the door.

PM Allawi was NOT elected by the Iraqi people and "puppet" might be too STRONG a term.

There are others but these needed to be cleared up.

Brian

I think the scale of the US burden is important. If the Coalition of the Willing had more skin on the game would they have been so willing. Parading around a colition that only has to give their approval is not exactly a diplomatic tour-de-force, especially when your actions will put you at odds with long-standing Allies with greater influence. In campaigns, strong words get thrown around and I think we are being a bit cordial. Kerry's comments are really aimed at the Bush Administration's record of diplomacy, which includes alienating our most powerful allies and a large portion of the World's governments by launching a preemptive strike on a member of the UN presenting thin (and later unsubstaniated) evidence, then installing a member of your antagonist's party as Prime Minister without a election. This is the record of diplomacy, if you can called it that, the Kerry's is commenting on.

And let's be careful, Kerry did not call anyone a liar rther pointed out inconsistantcies in Iraqi PM Allawi statements and intelligence gathered by the CIA (I'm sure you have heard of them). Which begs the question, is he towing the company line or actually looking for progressive policies to help his shattered nation? Will these pronouncements have a good effect on Iraq? Minimalliy, if they get PM Allawi to heed our best intelligence...yes!

Oil interests?! I'm going to leave that one alone to address the UN. I brought it not to endorse their methods or record rather to show the Bush Administration's lack of diplomatic tack. Which is what Kerry is getting at. I think that the validity of Kerry's statements do weigh in here. They underscore a grim diplomatic record in frank and accountable terms and offers an alternative.

PS: I'm alright, my man. I'll drop you a line later today.

I find it interesting that you are advocating treating our allies as precious resources and not alienating them in light of the Bush administration's policy of squandering and belittling allies who have faithfully fought by our side before.

Espousing frank and pretty much incontestable opinions about our present allies (who are offering little more than a pat on the back) in the hope winning back our former (and more influential) allies is better diplomacy than the bullying policies of the Bush administration.

Yes, I do believe that a broader, more influential international coalition can be formed. First, by admitting there is a problem.

Please call me Robert.

I've never once mentioned the British. The British have always been there for us and vice versa. Britain and Australia are the only countries making a significant military commitment, they are not the allies I have (or Kerry) have been scrutinizing. I'm concerned with the rest of this Coalition of the Willing that Bush flaunts as if he was the architect of some grand diplomatic coup. Most of them are offering political support or airspace access (I'll take it, but how about some military support. Oh, you don't have a military. Well, every little bit helps.)

And don't get carried away.
"...clearly geared to contain wider international terrorism."

Let's put that to bed.
There has never been ANY significant evidence linking Iraq to the attacks on 9/11, or Al Qaeda. Nor has there been ANY significant evidence of the Iraqi weapons of mass-destruction. This is confirmed by the 9/11 commision and our best intelligence. Water-tight and Irrefutable.

But we are straying from the original post. I'm going to end this by simply pointing out that if Kerry said he had better diplomatic skills than Bush. The operative word that statement is "than". This demands a comparison to prove or disprove the validity of said statement. Making a review of the Bush administration's diplomatic record not only valid, but absolutely essential.

Robert,

Indeed you did not specifically mention "the British" [or the Australians, Polish, Italians, Germans and others with forces and materiel on the ground or at sea or in the air as part of the military coalition], when referring to allies of the USA. Perhaps you should have been more specific in order to avoid ruffling feathers.

It would have been more diplomatic of you......

Besides, who specifically are the present allies "offering little more than a pat on the back...."?

When I wrote "clearly geared to contain wider international terrorism" I did not mention Iraq. There are UK military forces deployed and active in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan, Sierra Leone and who knows where else covertly, possibly including Brunei and The Philippines, working in concert with U.S. forces and others to contain terrorism.

If you want to Robert to we can get into the definition of "terrorism".

Why are they there ? Because the British are always just there for the U.S., like the Americans are always just there for the British ?

Like at Suez or the Falkland Islands, or, vice versa, in Vietnam ? Like "always" ? No, not always.

The British are as adept as any others, the French for example, at acting in what they perceive to be their own interests - therefore it may well be that the present British government sees it as being in Britain's best interests to act in coalition against a larger and potentially farther reaching than hitherto terrorist threat.

I do not think this is getting carried away Robert.

To return to your point about John Kerry's supposed "diplomatic skills" [oddly to me somewhat less than obvious considering his long service in the U.S. Senate], his latest efforts - admittedly since your first post on this matter- seem to have fallen flat.

The French suggest a summit on Iraq to include all belligerents, then Kerry proposes summits and "global tests" of American rights to pre-emption during the televised debate - does following the lead from Paris demonstrate skill Robert ?

John Kerry suggests bilateral discussion in future with North Korea, in preference to the established multilateral forum, which seems to instantly bolster North Korean belligerence when the next day they decline to talk further if South Korea is at the table - resulting in an aggravated stalemate, which arguably does not help U.S. relations with other parties in the 6 sided talks on North Korean weapons.

Furthermore, none of the many international leaders supposed and alleged by John Kerry to support his candidacy over that of President Bush has yet stepped up to confirm such an unlikely situation. Evidence of diplomatic skills Robert ?

John Kerry's only known efforts at direct diplomacy appear to have taken place in the early 1970s, when he met both of the Vietnamese factions at the Paris talks, perhaps covertly at that time and perhaps in breach of U.S. law. It does not seem to be clear what he achieved at that time, although maybe he decided to stay out of international diplomacy when he reached the U.S. Senate.

Does this evidence constitute a basis by which to posit that John Kerry has diplomatic skills and ideas that better those of President Bush ?

Say what you like about the president - criticise him on his record if you will, that is a healthy process - but putting forward John Kerry as being his equal or better in the arena of international relations and diplomacy is poppycock Robert.

McT