If Condi's genuine about talks...
There are claims circulating that the US's new policy of engaging with Iran and Syria have only been made possible by the stubbornness of Condoleezza Rice and the fact that Dick Cheney is out of town.
If this is true then it is profoundly depressing. I said yesterday that I thought this was either an attempt to convince Ahmadinejad that he was in the last chance saloon or a piece of faux diplomacy as a prelude to an American attack upon Iranian nuclear facilities. Cynical, I know, but I admitted that as I wrote it.
However, the idea that Rice has seriously proposed this and that this has only been made possible by the absence of Cheney is something that I find profoundly depressing because I have, until now, never detected any serious wish in the Bush administration to pursue diplomatic channels. If Rice is seriously now wishing to diplomatically engage with Iran and Syria - and this is something that we all hope is the case - then the fact that this was only made possible because Cheney is out of town almost guarantees that the talks will fail.
The policies of Cheney have been given an almost unlimited amount of time to succeed. His policy of non engagement has been the policy of the Bush administration for the past six years.
If Rice seriously wants to start talking then Cheney is going to insist that success must be instant or the talks abandoned and deemed a failure. Whereas he has been allowed six years to pursue his dumb policy of non engagement with absolutely no sign of visible success, any signs of procrastination during talks are going to be seized by the Cheney camp as a validation of his failed policy rather than as an inevitable consequence of the diplomatic process.
As I said yesterday, in time we will find out what is behind this astonishing U-turn from the Bush administration. But if Condi's attempts at negotiation are genuine, then I find this depressing because the odds against her succeeding are stacked so high.
Anyone who has ever sat in a corporate boardroom knows this logic. Hardliners are given an almost unlimited amount of time to prove their cynical worldview, whereas anyone proposing a more difficult and more pragmatic approach to any problem is almost always asked to produce instant success, or at the very least, to produce success within an extremely limited time frame.
This is the way that holders of the Cheney mindset confirm their worldview. Anything that proves difficult or time consuming - which genuine negotiation always does - is deemed to be a waste of time and rewarding an enemy.
The greatest failing of the Cheney mindset is a total inability to delay gratification. Gratification must always be instant which is why bombing is, to his mindset, far preferable to the more arduous process of taking the other sides genuine concerns and opinions into account. The latter requires patience, it requires some degree of empathy. It requires that one imagine what it must be like to stand in your enemies shoes. To attempt to think from your opponent's point of view.
If, and it's a huge bloody if, Condi is being genuine as Bhc and others hint that she might be, then she deserves all the luck in the world.
God knows, she's going to need it.
8 comments:
Kel,
The inability to delay gratification is a psychopathological trait. I found it depressing also that Rice needs Cheney out of town in order to make this proposal as if he was a physical threat and she and Bushbattered wives. But I don't believe it, it is deception and it is made to gain time for more consensus in the international community and to make Condi appear as a convenient presidential candidate. The neosons know that Condi is their last card. Even McCain who was like a sheep will not rule as a lackey, as Bush and Condi and others have done, following by the book the neocons wihes...
It will be fascinating to watch how quickly Cheney tells us that the talks are a waste of time. And by concentrating only on the subject of Iraqi security as opposed to the nuclear issue they are basically going to talk about "Why are you attacking our troops by supplying the other side weaponry?"
It's palpable nonsense of course but that doesn't matter. He will then order air strikes and tell us that he gave them ample warning and he was "protecting the troops" which is the mantra that I notice they are all repeating. Rove's obviously come up with this so that, when they do attack, those who oppose can be said to be against protecting the troops.
Thnak you for the kind words Kel and no it was not too tough. I just had to play around a bit with the new google beta settings in blogger to get the new look. If you haven't changed over yet, it's all pretty much drag and drop.
cyberotter,
I really thought it looked fantastic. I have changed over and find it much easier than wrestling with all that code like we had to do previously.
Kel,
I wrote that post mostly in jest, however, I think the effort may not be entirely disingenuous on the part of Rice. The cynacism induced by the Bush administration certainly does make it difficult to believe anyone there is doing diplomacy seriously.
That said, one must look to the North Korea agreeement as a positive State Department step. Bolton was pissed off by it and Cheney stomped around discounting its possible effectiveness. That these two hated it is perhpas indicative of a resassertion of strength by the State Dept., something that has been lacking in this administration.
But again, I don't trust any of them as far as I can spit. It may all be the sham we suspect.
Bhc,
It actually has occurred to me since writing that this morning that it matters not a jot whether she's being serious or not as Cheney will trample any such notions at birth.
So we possibly will witness a series of talks concerning, "Why are you killing Americans?" and other such Bush regime diplomacy.
I suppose some part of me hopes against hope that sense will eventually have some bearing on this insane administration, but that's probably just my Meds wearing off!
"Why are you killing Americans?"
If that is the opening diplomatic salvo from the White House, the Iranians should simply fire back, "why are you?"
I also cannot help but wonder whether James Baker is hovering around in the background somewhere.... I mean this is the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, afterall.
Bhc,
I always thought Baker was sent in by his father to rescue him, and was frankly amazed when his advice was so flippantly thrown aside. I suspect that Cheney and co refused to accept Baker's report because they could see it was a not too well disguised admission of defeat.
And I don't think they are ready to admit defeat just yet, which is why I suspect the whole thing's a sham so they can say "We tried everything" but, in the end, we had to bomb!
Post a Comment