October 9, 2006
TALKING TO YOUR ENEMIES....Donald Gregg, National Security Advisor for George H. W. Bush, on North Korea:
Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends — a huge mistake.
James Baker III said much the same thing yesterday:
“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.
“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”
Exactly right. Remember that turnaround in Libya that conservatives like to say was a result of the invasion of Iraq and George Bush's hardnosed foreign policy? Donald Gregg is right: it was negotiation that did the trick, not threats. You can read the whole story in "The Tyrant Who Came In From the Cold," a piece from our October issue based on excerpts from Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine. It's eye opening.
—Kevin Drum 5:45 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (59)
Keep up the valiant war against straw. Of course you can *talk* to your enemies. The only thing Republicans argue is that we shouldn't be quite so willing to appease Iran, North Korea, the UN, etc.
Incidentally, what's your source for the assertion that Col. Devlin wrote that email? We'd really like to know.
Posted by: American Hawk on October 9, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK
Wasn't Kadaffi's nuke program basically in mothballs, and he decided to trade it in for some goodies from the Bush administration?
Posted by: Speed on October 9, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK
GWB won't talk to his enemies because they might tell him something he doesn't like. Duh.
Posted by: Chocolate Thunder on October 9, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK
Ah, well if we can get more pics of elephant butts on TIME magazine and like, who's going to cares what poppy Bush's old friends say.
Its time for re-deployment.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 9, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK
Jesus' General has it right:
"Don't despair over North Korea's nuclear test. It's part of Our Leader's plan to build a case for bombing Iran. Why would Our Leader bomb Iran to punish North Korea? For the same reason he attacked Iraq to punish Al Qaeda. It's what emperors do."
Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 9, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK
we shouldn't be quite so willing to appease Iran, North Korea, the UN, etc.
Yeah, no worse enemy to the United States than the UN; why, sometimes, the member states even consider not providing a thin veneer of international support to American unilateralism. Bastards.
Incidentally, what's your source for the assertion...
What's your source for the assertion that Republicans (and very specifically, those in the Bush administration) are willing to talk to our enemies? But, of course, you're playing the game that the neocons are playing - for you, to even discuss issues with our enemies without them submitting to your demands ahead of time is tantamount to appeasement. That's not talking; that's bad faith pretending, at best.
Posted by: phleabo on October 9, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK
A liberal blogger wants you to read another liberal author's book to validate your cartoonish understanding of the sophisticated world of foreign policy.
I would believe that Kevin really wants Bush to talk to the enemies if he himself ever recommended a book by, say, Ann Coulter.
Posted by: jay on October 9, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin Drum >"...It's eye opening."
The trouble is that many of us already have our eyes open & the ones that need them opened are too busy squeezing them shut & yelling "Nah, Nah, Nah, can`t see it !"
"The first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt." - Ronnie Earle
Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK
I see that the American Nazi jay is checking in.
Fascists, why do you hang out here?
Posted by: POed Lib on October 9, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK
These stupid cocksuckers seem determined to get us all fucking killed.
Posted by: angryspittle on October 9, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK
There isn't anyone bright enough in the Bush administration to deal with NK.
Posted by: ESaund on October 9, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK
yeah Bush send Bill Clinton to North Korea with a gold plated copy of the Communist Manifesto as a gift from the people of the United States to the dear leader of North Korea.
Posted by: jay on October 9, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK
A lot of former alcoholics have this pseudo-macho bravado that informs their thought process, so that they cannot admit when they are wrong or ever appear to be "soft" in any way.
Self-hating homosexuals, who have not come to terms with their true sexuality, are often the same way.
In George W. Bush you have both, so the effect is amplified.
Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 9, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK
it was negotiation that did the trick, not threats.
Oh my dog! Does not compute! Does not compute!
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK
This administration can not even spell diplomacy. That said I don't think diplomacy would do much good at this point. Neither would military action. We have gone so far down the wrong path that we no longer have any good options, just that which is least horriable. Just like in Iraq.
Posted by: John Gillnitz on October 9, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK
You know, if there is just a 1% chance that Bush is a crazed lunatic who is trying to get us all killed, he should be impeached. It would be irresponsible not to.
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK
“Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: let both sides begin anew the quest for peace before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. We dare not tempt them with weakness, for only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course, both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war. So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear—but let us never fear to negotiate. ” — John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address, Wednesday, January 20, 1961
Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on October 9, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK
The only thing Republicans argue is that we shouldn't be quite so willing to appease Iran, North Korea, the UN, etc.
If only that were true. The truth appears to be that the only thing Republicans argue is that for every problem, there is a bombing target that will solve it.
I await W's air raid on the House of Representatives, come November 8th.
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK
I see Charlie dealing with ideas he doesn't like in the time-honored, traditional GOP manner.
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK
Charlie, can you tell us why you've adopted "Thomas1" in lieu of your many other identities, such as Cheney, etc? What's the point of having all these noms-de-crazy?
Posted by: grh on October 9, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK
Interesting: Bush takes the same stance with other countries as with other people: he'll talk only to those that are already friendly to him. He's scared to confront differences. What a putz.
Posted by: LeisureGuy on October 9, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK
Maybe if Bush sent some hard-nosed SOB that would get better results. But then liberals would be fearful of sending some old mean guy. Remember how they decried Bolton because he had so few manners.
Posted by: mhr on October 9, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK
What's stopping Bush from sending a hard-nosed SOB?
He got Bolton in, despite everyone else's disagreement. And hell - if Rice is Sec.State, and he's not sending her - she isn't hard-nosed enough? If she isn't then she shouldn't be in the fucking post in the first place.
Face it. Bush is in complete control - unitary executive here. If the job ain't gettin' done, it's one of two things:
1. Bush doesn't have the cujones to do what's necessary.
2. Bush doesn't have the wherewithal to do what's necessary.
Either way - that's not who you want leading your country when the shit starts flyin'.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 9, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK
The God Father said it best: Hold your friends close and your enemies closer.
Posted by: Jake on October 9, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK
noms-de-crazy?
Funny!
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK
“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”
And was he successful? did he bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians, or to Iraq? Did he persuade Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon? Did he alleviate the conditions inside Korea?
Hasn't everyone been talking to Korea, all along? Russia, China, S. Korea and Japan talk whenever Korea will listen, and often when they won't. After signing the treaty with the Clinton administration, Korea pursued nuclear power equally diligently in a different direction, but secretly.
Posted by: papago on October 9, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
Donald Gregg is right: it was negotiation that did the trick, not threats.
Really? But I thought the threat of military strikes and shock and awe were the only way to get people to do what we wanted them to do!
Sonofabitch, the last six years have been a boondoggle!
And, hey, Thomas1--just change the handle back to Charlie and save us the freakin' trouble.
What a surprise--stalking women on myspace? I'll bet you scour it every day, looking for someone who's thinking about having an abortion.
Posted by: Pale Rider on October 9, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK
Feh! Bush won't even make a speech to an audience which isn't composed of pre-selected groupies.
Posted by: BroD on October 9, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK
noms-de-crazy
noms de plum crazy?
Thomas1: This may be Col. Devlin's wife
You think? Tell us, is this your wife?
Posted by: Tim on October 9, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK
She's pretty! But from the sound of her on that page and from Tim's email address (herbs&kisses@helpingimpotenthusbands.com), it sounds like he's getting all the action. Do you think Tim would be willing to fuck my wife too?
Posted by: Al on October 9, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK
Bush has been willing to negotiate with NK all along -- just not on a bilateral basis. The administration has prudently concluded that only multi-party talks are in America's interest. Talking one on one with NK will allow Pyongyang to paint the inevitable impasse (you don't seriously think they're willing to give up their weapon program, do you?) as American intrasigience -- and that in turn will weaken our hand.
I'd say (ironically) NK is in a considerably weaker position than it was two days ago. In this instance, at least, Bushian obstinance has served the country well.
Posted by: James Madison on October 9, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK
BAKER COMMENTS FLUMMOXED HANNITY
Friday night James Baker appeared on FOX News, (Link: Video Baker Part II (two) (( http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html ))
where his remarks distancing himself from some aspects of Bush's Mid-East policy clearly discombobulated the cartoonish talking head Sean Hannity.
You mention in your article that Baker went to Syria fifteen times. On "H & C" he said that on his sixteenth visit Syria overturned its twenty year old policy and agreed to "sit" with Israel, de facto recognizing Israel for the first time.
As you stated he also said that meeting with your enemies was not "appeasement' and further intimated that to not meet was sophmoric.
He also concurred with a Cole Doctrine precept that to initiate a major foreign military initiative it needs to have the backing of the American public. (Paraphrased) he said, the American people will not back a major initiative based on some "principle" as in trying to export Democracy to Iraq. Given the choice between engaging in unsustainable forays and using America's might to achieve stability, stability is the preferred option.
Hannity tried to parry Baker's heretical bashing of Bush's core foreign policy talking points with the usual GOP gobbledygook propaganda such as "this is "World War III" and "this is a fight against Islamo Fascists." Beautifully, Baker let Sean's offer of GOP red meat talking points echo unanswered until embarrassed silence reigned.
Posted by: cognitorex on October 9, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK
Isn't it a pity there are so many crazy people (or those willing to pretend to be crazy) in America these days. It makes me wonder how we can pretend to hold the moral high ground in any discussion about Iran or North Korean nukes.
What can we possibly do to North Korea that wouldn't seem a like megalomaniacal power trip?
Posted by: MarkH on October 9, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK
George W. avoids talking to Americans who don't agree with him. Why would anyone think he could tolerate taking to North Koreans?
Posted by: Jim S. on October 9, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK
Anyone can see that Baker is being called in to shore up the dying bush base. An alternative to stay the course and cut and run which is of of course re-deployment
Posted by: Baker on October 9, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK
It IS an excellent piece, and since the print magazine arrived, I've been quoting it online, laboriously typing up excerpts.
Because it's supposedly one of those articles that's in the print magazine only, and unavailable online.
Which tells me it's ALL online, but even if I'm a print subscriber, you're not going to let me read it online unless you're in the mood.
This, in a nutshell, is why I'm not re-upping my subscription to the Washington Monthly. If the print magazine arrived before I'd read half of it online, that would be good. If I could read all of it online, that would be good too. But this damned in-between state is just tiresome. The content is great, but the delivery system, unfortunately, almost makes up for it.
The American Prospect makes ITS subscriber-only content available online to subscribers. Surely their web people can tell your web people how they do that. Let me know when it happens; I'll resubscribe, and buy gift subscriptions for my friends.
Posted by: RT on October 9, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK
I would believe that Kevin really wants Bush to talk to the enemies if he himself ever recommended a book by, say, Ann Coulter.
Bwahahahaa,, Anne Coulter isn't even a good lawyer much less a foreign policy wonk, her answer to everything is poison or kill it. And shes a Plagiarist to boot. Talk about 'GOD' less souls, Anne is it.
Posted by: Baker on October 9, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK
I would be nice if we could take a breath and figure out who our "enemies" as a nation are.
Isn't it clear by now that the typical terrorist, including OBL himself, is clearly a "criminal" but is it really accurate to promote a common criminal, or even a group of criminals numbering in the 100s, to the status of "enemy?"
Its going to feel like a really long century if every country that seeks to acquire nuclear weapons goes from, I guess "nothing" to "enemy" status without actually having to commit an actual hostile act against the United States first.
Based upon that standard, we are going to spend quite a bit of time dealing with "enemies."
Posted by: hank on October 9, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK
The only thing Republicans argue is that we shouldn't be quite so willing to appease Iran, North Korea, the UN, etc.
Bwahahahhahaaaa!! Do you have any memory whatsoever American ChickenHawk?
Rumsfeld was sitting on the board of a Zurich-based engineering firm that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for a pair of North Korean nuclear reactors.
The company is ABB. Rumsfeld served on the board from 1990 to 2001. He was the only American serving on the board. And he has never acknowledged ABB's role building the reactors in North Korea.
But a former ABB director recently told Fortune magazine that Rumsfeld was asked to lobby in Washington on ABB's behalf.
Posted by: Baker on October 9, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK
I think we're missing the point here. This Maladminstration will use diplomacy (to the extent that they understand the term) in its dealings with North Korea.
What other choice do they have?
None - and it appears the North Koreans know it.
There's no point waving around a big stick if it's flaccid.
Posted by: floopmeister on October 9, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK
What other choice do they have? -floopmeister
China.
Posted by: Baker on October 9, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, but China's still going to be using diplomacy. Also, the US can then give up any pretence at driving the agenda in this issue, because China (understandably!) has its own concerns and priorities above and beyond the general unease with developments which it shares with the US and others.
China will not have the national interests of the US at heart - why the hell would it? Still, as the diplomatic influence of the US around the world diminishes I guess this will be the best it can hope for. The settlement in Lebanon is a case in point - it was driven by the French, and not surprisingly increased French standing/influence at the expense of the US.
Posted by: floopmeister on October 9, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK
still, as the diplomatic influence of the US around the world diminishes I guess this will be the best it can hope for -floopmeister
I agree.
Posted by: Baker on October 9, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK
US would be more likely to be able to bring sanctions into place, with China as key, since NK is publicly producing enriched [97%] plutonium.
Posted by: Baker on October 9, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK
And what, pray tell, would be accomplished by talking to the North Koreans? Do you have any idea what a regime willing to starve its own citizens could want other than the raw power they already wield within their own country?
Are the talks an end to themselves? Sometimes I get that impression.
It's as if magically talking will transform KJI into a benevolent dictator. Perhaps the Roman Senate could've talked Nero out of his crazy 2000 years ago. But I wouldn't count on it. Neither did the Roman Senate -- they order his death.
(Hint: Crazy is as crazy does. Crazy is like a rancid box of chocolates. You never know exactly what type of crazy you're gonna get. But it's all crazy.)
Posted by: Inigo Montoya on October 10, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK
No, that's not my wife; I am not Charlie; it was really easy to google "Kathleen Devlin" & Marine.
Give it a rest, Chuckles.
Quit being a shithead and change your handle back to Charlie and be done with it.
Be proud of your inner Charlie...
Posted by: Pale Rider on October 10, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK
I say here and now.
NK is the end of the US as global policeman.
This debacle is primarily Bush's fault but the blame bleeds over to the democrats too. American foriegn policy is misguided and counterproductive. It does not help the world or the US.
We have the power. We lack competance and will. NK is typical american failure. It has several themes common to other failures; lack of knowlege; lack of curiosity; inablility to compromise effectively; lack of a fact-based long-term plan; moral arrogance; tactical incompetance; guided by ideological matrixes that presume facts to be untrue if they contradict those matrixes and introspection. The democrats suffer from all these vices with the fullness and enthusiasm of the republicans.
Its over folks. We blew it.
Posted by: exclab on October 10, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK
On "H & C" he [Baker] said that on his sixteenth visit Syria overturned its twenty year old policy and agreed to "sit" with Israel, de facto recognizing Israel for the first time.
Really? How's that working out now? Negotiations are a way to get to a goal, not a goal in themselves.
I'm trying to figure out why unilateralism is condemned in war, but supposed to be a brilliant idea in negotiations.
Asst. Secretary of State Christopher Hill has been negotiating with North Korea along with other nations for over a year now. That apparently doesn't count.
Posted by: monkeybone on October 10, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK
By the way, wankers, lay off the Marine and his wife.
Posted by: monkeybone on October 10, 2006 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK
Asst. Secretary of State Christopher Hill has been negotiating with North Korea along with other nations for over a year now. That apparently doesn't count.
My God - over a whole year!
That's terrible - diplomacy is obviously failing. We need to do something!
BTW, exclab - nicely put.
Posted by: floopmeister on October 10, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK
The rest of the world is para-annoyed at the paranoid.
You shitheads have bought the neo-con line and can't think outside the box anymore.
Other nation, by and large, suck up to America.
And you're worried about talking to your enemies.
What you've got is a problem with a persecution complex.
Posted by: opit on October 10, 2006 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK
“You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”
Anyone care to speculate how this jibes with our non-existent diplomatic relations with Cuba?
Posted by: RobW on October 10, 2006 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK
Though it makes good sense to talk with N. Korea, I think that Bush an co. have been correct to insist that it be in the 6 party format. Any agreement that we come to in N. Korea which China is not party to isn't worth the paper it would be printed on.
Posted by: TW Andrews on October 10, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK
It's nice to see that so many good patriotic Americans are pleased with the Bush foreign policy.
No matter what happens, it will be right in their eyes. Because President Bush said so.
Posted by: zak822 on October 10, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK
Hawk squalking about wars against straw—that's rich!
This jackboot-licking dustbluster has personally marched against armies of scarecrows... and still been defeated at every turn. Hey, they're waiting for you in the bunker, with special tablets to help you sleep.
Posted by: Kenji on October 10, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK
I'm trying to figure out why unilateralism is condemned in war, but supposed to be a brilliant idea in negotiations.
"Unilateralism" in negotiation means only one party wants to talk; no one calls that brilliant.
Your effort to conflate unilateral military with bilateral negotiation, and to further ignore the basis of criticism of certain instances of the former to claim that support for the latter is hypocritical is incredibly strained, and rather moronic.
Posted by: cmdicely on October 10, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK