Condi in Diplomatic Disneyland

Viewpoint: The Secretary of State tells the Lebanese that the blood they're seeing represents the birth of a brave new order. She's convincing nobody

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced a thankless, all but impossible task in trying to sell the Arab world on the U.S. policy of delaying a cease-fire so that the Israeli military can continue its anti-Hizballah campaign. But her case was hardly helped when she explained that the violence that has already killed more than 400 Lebanese and turned more than a half million into refugees represents the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Phrases like that — and her rejection of the call for an immediate cease-fire on the grounds that "whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old Middle East" — carry a revolutionary ring that scares the hell out of America's allies in the region. It was revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao, after all, who rationalized violence and suffering as the wages of progress, in the way a doctor might rationalize surgery — painful, bloody, even risking the life of the patient, but ultimately necessary. Social engineering is not surgery, however, and its victims find little comfort in the homilies of its authors.

Arab leaders, moreover, have learned to be suspicious of Rice's revolutionary ambitions — just a year ago, she spoke of spreading "creative chaos" in the region. Iraq, after all, is Exhibit A of the Bush Administration's "New Middle East," and it's a bloody mess that is growing worse by the day. Now, for Act 2, the Arabs are being told to sit quietly while Israel tears Lebanon apart, after months of watching it slowly throttle Gaza through a U.S.-backed economic blockade, and then bomb it for weeks on end. Hardly surprising that the Arabs — from the U.S.-backed autocrats to the beleaguered liberal democrats and the rising Islamists — see little to cheer in the Bush Administration's "new Middle East."

Rice's midguided revolutionary rhetoric is only one of the mistakes the Secretary of State made on her ill-fated mission to the MIdeast. Some other lessons the Administration will need to absorb quickly from its crash course in Middle East diplomacy:

Diplomacy means not only talking about your adversaries, but also talking to them

Critics have long warned that by refusing on principle to talk to the likes of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizballah, the U.S. is restricting its own ability to influence events in a region where those regimes and organizations represent a significant force. As Rami Khouri, editor at large of Beirut's Daily Star, so tartly put it: "Washington is engaged almost exclusively with Arab governments whose influence with Syria is virtually nonexistent, whose credibility with Arab public opinion is zero, whose own legitimacy at home is increasingly challenged, and whose pro-U.S. policies tend to promote the growth of those militant Islamist movements that now lead the battle against American and Israeli policies. Is Rice traveling to a new Middle East, or to a diplomatic Disneyland of her own imagination?"

The problem with boycotting regimes you deem unacceptable is that if they are able to influence events, you're forced to respond to their initiatives, often in dangerous crisis moments. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were implacable foes who knew they could not resolve their differences, yet they maintained communication and developed understandings that allowed them to manage those differences in the interests of global stability. It is time for Bush the Younger to grow up.

Sometimes listening is as important as talking

Last week, Administration officials spinning Rice's mission boasted that "she's not going to come home with a ceasefire, but with stronger ties to the Arab world... What we want is our Arab allies standing against Hizballah and against Iran, since there is no one who doesn't think Iran is behind this."

So the Bush Administration expected that while Lebanon and Gaza are under Israeli assault, the very Arab autocrats the Bush administration in a giddier moment had threatened with a fatal dose of democracy — and whose citizens are backing Hizballah — are going to give diplomatic support to Israel and the U.S. offensive against Hizballah? You have to wonder what these guys are smoking.

Plainly, every Arab leader they've spoken to since has insisted that stopping the bombardment is an absolute priority. Even the Iraqi government, ostensible poster child of the "new Middle East," has differed sharply with the Bush administration's stance. What the Arabs are telling Washington is this: Not only will the Israeli bombardment probably strengthen Hizballah in Lebanon, but its continuation with U.S. blessing will imperil other U.S. interests in the region

In the Middle East, you're judged by your position on Israel and the Palestinians

The Administration is correct that Hizballah and Iran represent a major challenge to the pro-U.S. Arab regimes such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They're so dangerous precisely because they are able to capitalize on the popular mood in those countries that seeks redress for the Palestinians — an issue on which the moderates have precious little to show for their cooperation with Washington. The political momentum in the not-yet-new Middle East is increasingly with forces hostile to the U.S.

Getting anything done diplomatically in the region will require a lot more than talking about President Bush's "vision" of a Palestinian state and a "road map" that is the functional equivalent of the old Beach Boys song "Wouldn't It Be Nice" — there is no active process associated with it, nor is there likely to be for the foreseeable future. Without revisiting the kind of peace process that the current Israeli government has sought to avoid, the "birth pangs of the new Middle East" may be interminable.

Enlightened self-interest will determine Syria's actions

Recognizing that Syria could play a decisive role in curbing Hizballah's capacity for violence, Administration officials have been talking up plans to "peel Syria away" from its ties to Iran, although its refusal to talk directly to Damascus means it has to outsource the job to Arab allies viewed by Syria with contempt. And unless they're offering a credible incentive, they're probably wasting their breath: Syria has withstood years of pressure and harangues from the U.S. — perhaps aware that the U.S. and Israel, knowing that the most likely alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood, actually want to keep the Ba'ath regime in place. Syria will refrain from confronting its more powerful enemies, but is unlikely to lift a finger to help them unless it can see in that course a road to end its isolation, and to a resumption of talks aimed at returning the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967, to Syrian control.

Develop a Plan B

The current U.S. position is based on the assumption that Israel's military campaign will, if not destroy Hizballah's military capability, badly bloody the organization and force it to accept what it might deem as a surrender. The "cease-fire" that would eventually be agreed would then amount a mopping up operation. But it's growing increasingly unlikely that those battlefield objectives can be realized, and if not, any cease-fire would probably not be on the terms the Administration is seeking. More often than not, diplomacy results in second-best solutions. And if Hizballah survives the Israeli offensive as a fighting force, preventing a recurrence of the crisis would require engagement with the movement's external backers.

RICE: her rejection of the call for an immediate cease-fire on the grounds that "whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old Middle East" — carry a revolutionary ring that scares the hell out of America's allies in the region. It was revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao, after all, who rationalized violence and suffering as the wages of progress, in the way a doctor might rationalize surgery — painful, bloody, even risking the life of the patient, but ultimately necessary.

This is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long time. It’s one of the first to fully recognize the shift in American foreign policy. Of course this author is afraid and like her colleagues quick to blaspheme Rice and the America she represents. Secretary Rice IS in fact the spokesperson for the global revolution. Change can be frightening for some but no longer is Rice just an American diplomat. The global revolution has been underway for years, but as yet had no spokesperson. None before this journalist has made note that an American, specifically Secretary Rice, is the revolution's official spokesperson. Journalists are people too and in any group of people, there are some visionaries and some who are blind to their surroundings. History points out that American revolutionaries established constitutional freedom of the press, and spilled blood to protect it. The idiotic parallels --- between Lenin, Mao --- this fool makes may be entirely lost on her and on Time Magazine altogether, but they are not lost on revolutionary Americans. Despotism and acompaning moral relativism are responsible for more blood, pain and subjugation than any other human activity. Moral relativism has played a major role in obstructing the march of freedom across much of Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. However, it comes as no surprise that moral relativism hasn’t stopped freedom's march. Freedom is the natural state of human affairs! I am proud to know that a revolutionary American is now its official spokesperson! Thank you Secretary Rice!

How do you define freedom? Or of what does freedom consist?

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People and their elected representatives to alter or to abolish despotic regimes, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles of justice, liberty and the rule of law — and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is justice, it is duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for future security.

"This is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long time. It’s one of the first to fully recognize the shift in American foreign policy. Of course this author is afraid and like her colleagues quick to blaspheme Rice and the America she represents. Secretary Rice IS in fact the spokesperson for the global revolution. Change can be frightening for some but no longer is Rice just an American diplomat."

It is not blasphemy to acknowledge Rice's manifold failures. Ideas are one thing, having the knowledge and know how to maneuver among the realities of the Middle East to keep those ideas on track, instead of constantly being derailed by events you should have, but failed to anticipate does not make Rice a revolutionary, it makes her a bumbler.

(1)She was travelling when the current crisis broke out and before she had time to really hear the President's point of view, her first opinion off the top of her head was to join the Amen chorus for an immediate cease fire. She changed her tune only after detailed conversations with the White House. She is now not following her and her handler's (Burns) policy, she is following the demands of the White House.

(2)She and Nicholas Burns failed to listen to Abbas and his warnings before the Palestinian elections; pushed them through in spite of Abbas admonitions that the timing was premature and would lead to a Hamas Victory.

(3)Hezbolla has been getting missiles from Iran and building deep protected tunnels and bunkers almost since the last Israeli soldier left, in 2000, while Rice and Burns have relied, like fools, on verbal assurances from Syria that Hezbolla would not be allowed to get foolish.

(4)Christian and Druze Lebanese leaders warned Rice and Burns that elections there held immediately behind a Syrian withdrawal would only enthrone a political status quo of a non-majority government imposed by election formulas put in place by Syria. But Rice and Burns wouldn't listen.

(5)In both cases, Palestine and Lebanon, facts on the ground took second place with Rice and Burns to their public relations campaign of "helping democracy". In both cases their elevation of their own PR goals meant their actions were helping produce very flawed results and worse, giving a bad name to "democracy".

As it is now, Hezbolla has a good chance of becoming the defacto "official" voice in Lebanon and make Lebanon the a Taliban-style failed-state like Afghanistan was in 2001.

Thank you Condoleeza Rice.

Great. So How do you define Liberty ? Or of what does Liberty consist?

VOCAB:

GLOBALIZATION: To make global or worldwide in scope or application.
FREEDOM: Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
LIBERTY: The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
IDEOLOGY: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
GOVERNMENT: A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
POLITICS: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation.
COMMUNITY: A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
EXPRESION: The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement; a manifestation.
JOURNALISM: The style of writing consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
AUTONOMY: A self-governing state, community, or group.
DEMOCRACY: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
ELECTORATE: A body of qualified voters.
INFLUENCE: Power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position
CITIZEN: a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community
RIGHTEOUS: Morally upright; without guilt or sin.
MORALITY: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

ALTERNATIVELY:

ISOLATIONISM: A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.
FASCISM: A system of government under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.
DICTATORSHIP: Absolute or despotic control or power.
OLIGARCHY: Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
OLIGOPOLY: A market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors.
THEOCRACY: A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
RELIGION: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
TRIBE: A unit consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry.
SECTARIAN: Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
APOSTATE: One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.
POLITICAL PRISONER: A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views.
SUBJECT: One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.
CONTROL: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.
SLAVE: One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence.
DOGMATIC: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
SOCIOPATH: One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.
DETENTION: A forced or punitive delay.
OPPRESSION: The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power.

It is not blasphemy to acknowledge Rice's manifold failures. Ideas are one thing, having the knowledge and know how to maneuver among the realities of the Middle East to keep those ideas on track, instead of constantly being derailed by events you should have, but failed to anticipate does not make Rice a revolutionary, it makes her a bumbler.

We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: "the fog of war." What "the fog of war" means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily. Wilson said: "We won the war to end all wars." I'm not so naieve or simplistic to believe we can eliminate war. We're not going to change human nature anytime soon. It isn't that we aren't rational. We are rational. But reason has limits.

The question isn't if what she's done are mistakes, but if she knows we are at war? I believe she does. Revolutions emerge when great leaders abandon advice that maintains the present; pursue a clearly defined future while achieving intermediate goals aligned to that future - never abandoning strategy - constantly changing tactics.

These "VOCAB" is good for making slogans. What about providing a good definition?

WILL: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

I’ve provided my definition of freedom. I’ve provided the recognized definition of liberty and freedom. I’ve provided synonyms, antonyms and words similar or related to liberty and freedom. I have the will to continue this thread but you’ll have to demonstrate the capacity to absorb and process valid information. In other words, you’ll have to help me help you understand what freedom is [from my perspective of course] if this thread is to make any progress. Here’s a hint… consider what you believe freedom is, articulate it and then ask me, “Hey HUMINT, how is your version different than mine?” --- Just a suggestion...

American system, although born from revolution is not designed to make a new revolution. You need a very determined small leadership to conduct a large change.

Two years from now and there will be another administration and American people will get distracted by another issues.

UNLESS, UNLESS the secret is that this policy is bipartisan one, based on continuity of establishment lasting over generations. The empires are not being "acquired inadvertently, in a fit of absent-mindedness"

"The question isn't if what she's done are mistakes, but if she knows we are at war? I believe she does. Revolutions emerge when great leaders abandon advice that maintains the present; pursue a clearly defined future while achieving intermediate goals aligned to that future - never abandoning strategy - constantly changing tactics."

I believe that none of your well-spoken ideas have any true, real applicability to Condoleeza Rice. They may be part of what you would like to see, but I see nothing in anything she has done as Secretary of State to believe that she respresents or embodies your ideas in any way.

As soon as she became Secretary of State, she immediately hired Nicholas Burns to be her Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He has driven the State Department agenda under Rice, not her. And, before that job he was the senior foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's Presidential campaign in 2004, and before that he had years rotating between the permanent government policy wonks (40 years of failure) at State and liberal think tanks.

Condi is a bumbler running a schizophrenic foreign policy walking on a tightrope between the vision of George Bush and the 50 years of failed State Department ideology being pushed by Nicholas Burns. People in the Middle East have rightly begun to see American foreign policy for what Condi's schizophrenic balancing act represents - bumbling indecision.

[The] American system, although born from revolution is not designed to make a new revolution. You need a very determined small leadership to conduct a large change.

REVOLUTION: The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.

I disagree with Mr. Pole on the basis that ideas and examples incite revolution. The origin of revolution is not people but ideas and American political ideas and processes continue to be feedstock for revolution around the world. How many liberal democracies have arisen since 1789? The examples of governance set by the United States have exerted incredible influence over a global revolution toward democracy. The definition of revolution does not require revolutionaries be indigenous, nor a small group. You are correct Mr. Pole in describing how revolution tends to work but you’ve restricted the concept of revolution. I believe you are dead wrong to suggest the American system is not designed to make new revolution. The fact is the very existence of the United States incites revolution in places like Iran. The government of Iran is forced to react, isolate and vilify liberal democracy. Why? If Iran does not, its pillars of fascist power will rot and collapse under the weight of its people's ideas. All people are hungry to adopt successful changes they know occur every day in other parts of the free world. Why should Iranians be left out?

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

Sovereignty of the people.
Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.
Minority rights.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
Free and fair elections.
Equality before the law.
Due process of law.
Constitutional limits on government.
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.