Diplomacy: It’s all in how you do it
Richard Holbrooke is right on track about the Iraq issue in this article in the Star Tribune. I don’t think anyone disagrees with Bush’s assertion that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein in it, but the way the president goes about making his case is all wrong. No, it’s worse than wrong--it’s a diplomatic catastrophe.
The article points out that president Clinton was much more diplomatic, even when he ordered the bombings of Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq--all without a U.N. resolution. He was able to maintain good relations with our allies because he made it a point not to affront them, unlike the current adminstration, which does so at every opportunity.
Bush, on the other hand, has “created coalitions of opposition to the United States” by repeatedly demonstrating his disregard for the will of the international community.
The United States really owes the rest of the world better leadership. We owe it to the world not to let Bush be our president after his current term expires. He simply doesn’t have the diplomatic skills for the job.
It might surprise people who read this blog to know that I do actually believe that a strong case for war in Iraq can be made. I just don’t think the president has made that case. For me, how the president goes about doing things is just as important as what he does. In Bush’s case, I don’t think the United States has enough good will left in the international community to allow Bush to complete another round of what is clearly on-the-job diplomacy training.
Anyway, Holbrooke expects that “the war will begin within three weeks or less.” The fuse is now lit, folks (or, rather, the upcoming Blix report will do it). All we can do now is wait for the explosion and hope that the damage really is as limited as the Bush team assures us it will be.
