[trisham]

Clearly there was a desire to dilute the message being sent.

****************

Yes, I think you're quite right. I suspect I would be a crashing failure at diplomacy.

[SJackson]

Clearly there was a desire to dilute the message being sent.****************Yes, I think you're quite right. I suspect I would be a crashing failure at diplomacy.

By sending out the White House message?

A crashing failure was our diplomats suggesting to Sadaam we'd show "restraint" should he enter Kuwait. A direct statement of the White House position might have saved a lot of aggravation.

Alternatively, if restraint is the GWB position, it should come from the White House. Confusion isn't always a positive thing.

[Tolik]

You know, a straight message and clear well defined policy can be the best diplomacy: it won't make any illusions and can achieve political goals better than a message that needs to be deciphered on multiple levels with a good probability of a mistake (like a message to Saddam before his attack in Kuwait).

How about a message to Syria: abandon all support of Hezbollah, or we will let Israel to take out you too? Israel kills Hezbollah. Lebanon loses its menace. Syria stays intact (for now). Clear and simple.