We Should Talk to Our Enemies

A return to sensible diplomacy seems like a good idea to me. Ronald Reagan called the Soviets the evil empire and funded new nuclear delivery systems (on the one hand), but also met deployed diplomats throughout the world and met personally with the leader of the Soviet Union and other US opponents. It worked just fine. Meeting with a leader of an opposing state doesn't mean that you surrender to them! sssssurrendersthem!them,tmeans you are willing to work towards a peaceful sol

I'm voting for the establishment of Greater Kurdistan..the return of Ionia and occupied Cyprus to Greece..a plebiscite to free Kashmir from Indian Occupation..a restoration or at least partition of the Ogaden in favor of Somalia..a new vote in the six counties of "Northern Ireland" to reflect the desires of the Irish people..a reversal of our illegal recognition of an "independent" Kosovo controlled by illegal aliens from Albania...but from the infantile tone of your short comment...I doubt if you have ANYTHING meaningful to say on these subjects!!!

"ricinct" You said: It is in the long term interest of America and our allies in the region to promote the dismemberment of the Iranian state... A New World state must have a foreign policy that reflects our political heritage...

For whom are you voting? I must be sure to vote contrary.

It never hurts to talk and while extensive preparation should be made prior to meeting between world leaders there is evidence that even impromptu, unprepared discussions can be immensely helpful. For example the 1959 Nixon-Krusheve kithen debate. Nothing was settled in that argument other then both me were willing to talk to each other respectfully and hear what each other had to say. This was huge at the time and led to the establishment of a dialogue between the two super powers which ultimately saved the world from the spectre of a nuclear holocaust.

McCain has stated "he hates gooks and always will" One can perhaps understand his dislike for Vietnamese; perhaps.
But the bigotry this comment shows is over the top. McCain also was a prime mover for the invasion of Iraq and his efforts to invade may even predate Bush. An action that is with little doubt one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history.
Considering McCains repeated statement "I know how to win wars" and clear contempt for dialog, he could easily be a greater failure at foreign policy and a threat to peace than Bush; if that is possible.
But he would; as Bush has been; a real hero to the munitions manufacturers and continue their hold on the Government. What was it Eisenhower called them...the military industrial complex.
$380,000 per minute every minute of every day for Iraq and McCain could go for 100 years of it.
God help us if this man is elected President.

Bedford, I agree with you that McCain has not stated literally as you have said. I agree in the same way that I think we all know McCain has tried to apply to Obama the role of appeaser or capitulator. Neither is such an absolute, nor such a caricature .

The flaw of the article is that it is written in a political point of view against McCain. As we are bogged down in Iraq with the military stretched to the limit, with needs in Afghanistan, it appears from this perspective that everything that can potentially conserve military capacity, would be the preferred alternative. I have looked for McCain to emphasize that.

Notwithstanding the suggestions, I do not believe Obama is an appeaser or capitulator. The article is consistent with my personal observations about that.

I hope we all can agree that serious priority should be devoted to diplomacy, if only to have the knowledge, rather than expectation, of failure.

I don't doubt Mr Burns expertise at foreign policy but obviously he has not followed the campaign very closely.

McCain / Palin said they would not talk at the Presidential level without pre-conditions. McCain/Palin never said they would not talk after preconditions were worked out at the lower level.

On a side note Henry Kissinger agreed with McCain/Palin.

I don't doubt Mr Burns expertise at foreign policy but obviously he has not followed the campaign very closely.

McCain / Palin said they would not talk at the Presidential level without pre-conditions. McCain/Palin never said they would not talk after preconditions were worked out at the lower level.

On a side note Henry Kissinger agreed with McCain/Palin.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by talking first.

If need be we can always just go kill everybody afterwards as many republicans would have it.

I'm just soooo glad that the NeoCons who got Bush to disregard his experienced military and diplomatic advisers, will not be in control of this government, very soon.

In all the debates I've listen to thus far, I've never heard Senator McCain nor Gov. Palin say categorically that their administration would never talk to our adversaries. As I recall, Sen. McCain qualified his remarks in saying that he would cosider diplomatic contact conditionally--presumably if they would give up their quest to annihalate Israel in a race for neuclear weaponary. Be sure that I'm not trying to put words into Senator McCain's mouth.

I would appreciate it if Nicholas Burns would write an article explaining how you discuss anything with an individual who flatly denies certain historical events ever happened when there exist, around the world, documented historical proof such events did occur. I refer in particular to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement that the holocaust never happened. Maybe Mr. Burns can explain how one discusses anything with a person whose mind set is cast in concrete. Can he explain how one goes about changing such an individuals beliefs and thinking. If such an individual truly believes certain historical events didn???t happen because it suits their beliefs then what makes Mr. Burns think simply talking to such an individual is going to change his wish for the annihilation of the United States, Israel, or any other country. Mr. Burns needs to get out of the halls of academia and government and into the real world. If someone pulls a gun on me and informs me of their intention to do bodily harm to myself then the last thing on mind will be, ???Oh gee I guess I had better to talk to this fellow in an attempt to discover what his complaints against me are.??? The foremost thing on my mind, if such an incident were to occur, would be that of self preservation. I would produce a weapon of my own and attempt to defend myself. I would not even attempt to talk to such a despot because he has already demonstrated, by his actions, what his intents are.
If Mr. Burns truly believes what he espouses then I might suggest he relocate to Iran and expound his philosophy over there and we will see how Mr. Ahmadinejad feels about Mr. Burns???s right of free speech. No, that is a bad idea because he would more than likely have his head, literally handed to him on a platter and then we would have to endure the news media bunk about what a great journalist he was and etc. No let???s keep him here in the states with us. You know what they, ???keep your friends close and your enemies closer???!

Theonetruedoug: The article to which this blog is attached is about far more than Iraq and Afghanistan. A Jewish female American friend I met much later, was in Afghanistan when I was in No. Africa. Her experiences and observations were the same as mine. A Naval Academy graduate friend went to Iran about the same time. He shared the same observations with me.

What has happened since is that Wahhabi'ism has been given in the words of others a gigantic 'recruiting poster'. Wahhabi'ism is still a tiny sect, which is maniacal in its pseudo-religious fervor. We are their rallying cry. We will not gain by giving them more reasons. I am not saying they're right in their beliefs, but just imagine if Arabs occupied our country. There would be a rallying cry, and I would join.

We are not going to exterminate all Arabs or Muslims.

Bush should have listened to his experienced military commanders and diplomats rather than abdicate to the NeoCons who mesmerized themselves with their own ideology and fantasies about what would happen. Had we gone in with sufficient forces to maintain the peace, and if we had shown the populace that we were there to help them form a viable country and way of life, we very well might have stayed welcome and the vast majority probably would have accommodated our presence for a reasonable time. Now, all we look like to them is arrogant bully occupiers. We must have the majority of both countries seeing us as allies in their own cause to have a better life and to throw off the crazies.

The majority of Iranians still like and prefer Americans. Orwell's 1984 taught us the effectiveness of demonizing all others: it means perpetual war. There are many others we can manage to turn into mortal enemies. We cannot conquer the world. Iran is years away from nuclear capabilities. We can use that time in ways that potentially put us in a position of having allies, and friends in Arab/Muslim countries, and rebuild our military in the mean time. Or we can be the cause of the worst case scenario now.

Almost all Arab/Muslim countries wanted Israel removed. Now, most of them are ready to make peace. We did not conquer them into that point of view.

We do not have to rush into Iran now. We need troops in Afghanistan who will help the majority with their goal of escaping the oppression of the Taliban. The mountain tribes loved us when we helped them defeat the Russians. We then abruptly left and the vacuum was filled by the Taliban. If we are their friends, with common cause, they will see who are the invaders, and they will join us in fighting them.

Or, we can just assume that they're all Evil Muslims, and decide that we must kill them all, now.

Do not dismiss me as a leftist or pacifist. I just want to know for sure that when we war, we must, and we have an approach that ultimately can lead to peace. Rabid hatred or demonization of everyone else is not that way.