Deeper than Originally Specified
On the one hand, it is getting easier now to sway some people toward the view that before the Iraq War no degree of diplomacy could be too much. We are into it far enough to have many people shift their views, thinking, saying, in effect: were there no other ways to deal with what our leaders considered a crisis, requiring imminent intervention? We will never know. Historical reflection suggests it has always been so.
~ On the other hand, experience being sometimes the harsh teacher, and costly, we now know that the diplomatic conceptions, skills, experience, and policies of the United States of America have needed revisions and revamping for some time. The world has changed, and it has not changed in our favor. Neither does the rest of the world seem as much interested to assure the continuing health and happiness of the United States as in the past. To be sure, we do have cultural and economic allies who are vitally concerned about our health, our image, and our conduct as these factors affect them heavily.
~ How interesting: Those nations with whom we most needed stronger diplomatic relations four years ago are in at least two prominent cases the same ones with whom we have more serious diplomatic problems today. I am referring to Iran and Syria. And can we say that our diplomatic position has been improved on the European continent? Quite the contrary.
~ The United States will respond, eventually, to such needs as seem most crucial. Whether that includes building a more responsive and knowledgeable diplomatic system is the question. That kind of endeavor requires much funding, preparation, and development, but it is not as if we are prostrated diplomatically today; we simply need to refocus our energies, take advantage of existing resources, and develop others. Our diplomacy also needs the benefit of a revised attitude about the functions of diplomacy in a globalized world, a world in which older conceptions, such as those current in the Cold War, will not work, and in which the US is increasingly recognized as a favorable partner with any nation whose needs we can help to meet.
~ The hole we are digging (folks in the media are talking about the deepening hole of Iraq) seems indeed to be “deeper than originally specified.” So, too, our commitment, being necessarily “deeper than . . . .” And so, too, for the Iraqis, it seems, regardless of their positions. The diplomacy of the United States of America also needs to be “deeper (and broader) than originally specified.” Intelligence and counterintelligence measures have developed a lot in the last few years, but they cannot take the place of wise diplomacy. I wonder whether the American citizens are ready to go deeper. We have a long-standing history and tradition of isolationism that has been pervasive in spite of our considerable and growing enmeshment with the world. Our enmeshment amid globalization is unprecedented, and yet we seem surprised that (1) it should be hard to get along with other nations, and, (2) so many nations find it so hard to get along with us–they don’t like us in many instances. Know my bias: I know it is useful to be more informed, historically, geographically, politically, culturally, and experientially — at the least one’s basis for studying, discussing, and working out compelling matters internationally is stronger with such knowledge and the understanding that comes from it. It is, indeed, a matter of wanting to go “deeper than originally specified,” so to speak, in our engagement with the world, hopefully as servants, too, who do our best for ourselves as well as others by serving.
~ Speaking of servants: the present “dogpiling” of critics on President Jimmy Carter over his most recent book is a reminder (from the 1970s) of how being downright nice personally is no substitute for indecision and ineptitude, qualities, er, deficiencies shown painfully during the Carter administration (a Democratic administration, mind you, but one often at legislative odds with the Congress) in dealing with an old nemesis nation called Iran. Yes, that Iran, that under the Khomeini-led revolution held over 300 Americans as hostages for more than a year, and against which the US sent a Marine helicopter raid that ended in catastrophe in the Iranian desert. By the way, I think some people need to read his book carefully before they presume to condemn it — yes, I need to read it, too. Perhaps the clearest indication of a problem with the book is the response (resignation) of Dr. Kenneth Stein from his associations with the Carter Center in Atlanta. (I think Carter’s better qualities and examples of Christian action are too readily misunderstood or condemned by too many people, including “conservative” Christians; how can I know their reasons for it? To be sure, former President Carter does take a more activistic approach to international problems, and with a bit too much equanimity to suit some folks. Trouble is, I think I saw some of that in Jesus of Nazareth once or twice, and it changed the way I read and understood the Gospels’ accounts. Another hypothesis: Carter has written and published enough over the years and recently to present a renewed, desirable target for his critics!)
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:15 am
Those are very astute observations, Uncle Jerry. The concept of “deeper than originally specified” is an interesting one. Perhaps I do need to think of diplomacy in Iraq as a deeper thing. It certainly isn’t happening over night!
I think these past elections spoke volumes to the overall feeling of the nation. Were people actually saying the Democrats can do better? Or, were they just responding in frustration to a formidable situation in Iraq? Time will tell!