HELEN THOMAS: Obama has it right: Why not talk to adversaries?

[babylonsister]

Obama has it right: Why not talk to adversaries?

By HELEN THOMAS
Hearst Newspapers


During the Cold War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower often said that he would go anywhere, any time, any place in pursuit of peace.

Ike promoted co-existence with the former Soviet Union and invited Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to visit the United States.

Conservative Republicans were unhappy when President Richard M. Nixon made his surprise journey to hard-line communist China in 1972. But the move was mostly applauded as a diplomatic breakthrough, leading to better relations between the two nations.

The American people rejoiced at those peacemaking gestures and didn't think that Eisenhower — a World War II hero— was naive to talk to the Soviets with the goal of easing tensions between the two super powers, particularly since each had doomsday nuclear arsenals.

There were some hints and hopes — among liberals at least — that President Bill Clinton would open a dialogue with Cuba during his years in the White House. But he was not willing to take the risk and pay the political price — especially in Florida, traditional hotbed of anti-Castro sentiment.

So it is disturbing for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to ridicule Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — her main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination— for saying he would be willing to meet with the reviled leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea, if he's elected president.

And why not? What's wrong with diplomacy?

more...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5019784.html

[Buzz Clik]

1. Look out, Helen! Here come the flames.

[Forkboy]

13. Flaming Helen is dangerous.

And rightly so. :)

[Ethelk2044]

2. Well They would have to hate on Bill too. He said there needs to be more diplomacy

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[karynnj]

5. and he had no prior agreements on solutions

when he met with Ehud Barak and Arafat. I still think that diplomacy was good - and should have continued under Bush. Maybe someone should ask Senator Clinton about this.

[TeamJordan23]

10. Yah, we need real diplomacy. Not Rice going around shaking people's hands.

Which seems all that she has done. Why not try to actually solve the problem.

[tetedur]

3. The difference between JFK and Shrub? The Guns of August

JFK required DOD to read 'The Guns Of August' by Barbara Wertheim Tuchman. He learned from a book that the tragedy of world war could have been averted if prinicipal players would have used diplomacy. He was the reason the US averted war with the USSR during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

The difference between JFK and GWB?

GWB wanted war and JFK did not.

[Sadie4629]

4. I've never read "The Guns of August"

but I was under the impression that diplomacy was tried (by Chamberlain) and didn't work.

[tetedur]

7. Chamberlain was PM before WWII.

Certainly diplomacy didn't work with Hitler. JFK's father,ambassador to GB, believed that Hitler couldn't be stopped and FDR removed him. Interestingly, I heard that it was Prescott Bush that convinced Amb. Kennedy that Hitler would win a war.

In "Thirteen Days" there is a scene where JFK is thinking about the escalation of the Cuban missile crisis and he says:

"We should have brought in the guys from the atomic energy commission and talked this through...looked to these tests a little bit harder before we gave (the military) the go ahead. I read the Guns of August last summer. I wish every man on that blockade had read that book. It's World War I, thirteen million killed all because the militaries of both alliances believed they were so highly attuned to each other's movements and dispositions that they could predict one another's intentions. But all their theories were based on the last war. The world and technology had changed and those lessons were no longer valid but it was all they knew. So the orders went out, couldn't be rescinded. Your man in the field their families at home couldn't even tell you the reasons why their lives were being destroyed.

Why couldn't they have stopped it? What could they have done?

Here we are fifty years later. If one of their ships resists inspection and we shoot out it's rudder and board. They shoot down one of our planes in response. So we bomb their anti-aircraft sites. In response to that they attack Berlin. So we invade Cuba. And they fire their missiles. And we fire ours."

Personally, I believe that we averted WWIII at that moment in time because JFK was there. If Nixon had been president we would have been at war in Cuba from the time of the Bay of Pigs.

Another example of how talking to "the enemy" might have been benefical:

After the Cuban revolution Castro came unannounced on a plane to ask for assistance from Eisenhower. Eisenhower refused to see him but let VP Nixon handle it. Nixon turned Castro away. Castro got on his plane and went to the Soviet Union. They gave him help. They sure did.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Guns of August was about the lead up to WW1.

It is an absolute must-read, along with her "March of Folly".

[Cha]

6. Bill Clinton wouldn't take

"the risk" for .. "There were some hints and hopes — among liberals at least — that President Bill Clinton would open a dialogue with Cuba during his years in the White House. But he was not willing to take the risk and pay the political price — especially in Florida, traditional hotbed of anti-Castro sentiment."

But, he thought he'd take the Monica Risk.

I love to hear about the meeting between Obama and "the reviled" Chavez!

[tetedur]

11. Perhaps if there were war threats with Cuba Clinton would have

tried diplomacy with Castro. The war pigs had set their greedy sights on oil rich middle east by the Clinton era. Funny how Bush's daddy oil company "Zapata Petroleum" was involved in the Caribbean. (Check out the Zapata Swamp that is located around the Bay of Pigs.) Also note how Chavez is now the big evil in the oil rich country of Venezuela.

The war pigs are still here and roaming far and wide. Beware.

[Cha]

14. Yeah, why are all the baddies

in the OIL RICH countries?

[rucky]

9. Thanks Helen!

:yourock:

Can we put the issue to bed, now?

[Forkboy]

12. They are all correct on that point.

The trouble isn't the stated goal,it's the language used in the international arena.Adding terms like "Or we will" or "we'll have to" is strictly for the home crowd here.It certainly doesn't help the the incredibly tight spot that Musharraf is already in,and can only make the stated goal of capturing Bin Laden even more difficult.

There is no arena where language is more important than in Foreign Policy.There is a time and place to say such things and it's behind closed doors through diplomatic channels.Saying these things through the press,for the sole purpose of scoring political points at home,is the exact kind of American-centric thinking we need to get away from.We do not act in a vacuum,and these words have consequences beyond the desired effect of just appealing to a potential voter here in the U.S.

Again,it's not so much what they're saying,but how they're saying it and the forum they're choosing to say it in.This isn't an example of talking to our adversaries.One,Musharraf is not an adversary,he's an ally (we can debate how good of one he is elsewhere).Two,this isn't speaking to anyone,it's speaking past them.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. BO now has the same position HRC has on this issue nt

[tabasco]

16. Great article by the wise Helen Thomas.

Eisenhower also warned us about the danger of war profiteers gaining control of the Nation.

We allowed it to happen despite his warning.

[maximusveritas]

17. Helen is one "expert" I will listen to n/t

[No Coercion]

18. They're all nuts...

...but so are American politicians--and we talk to them, right?

Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad--these guys are raving totalitarians. But the principle guiding American foreign policy should always be: talk, trade, interact, use diplomacy--UNLESS someone physically tries to invade our country. We would avoid a LOT of problems if we followed that.

[Skip Intro]

19. dupe?