Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Diplomacy and Sheer Brutality

In response to Gus Van Rant's "Vive la difference", can one simply come to the conclusion the Axis of Evil report card has failed simply because it is not looking too good at the moment? And as for his offer of a new approach - the use of non-aggresion pacts - don't he really think this is something new? What does he say of the EU's exhaustive attempt to persuade Iran which, by the way, failed?

Now, since he used the case of Libya to make his point, let us take a closer look at what happened to Muammar al-Gaddafi shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Many are unwilling to remember this important detail but shortly after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, al-Gaddafi came out of hiding to announce that his nation did indeed have an active weapons of mass destruction program, and that he was willing to allow international inspectors into his country. We can all speculate on why he choose to make that declaration at that specific time, but some credit must be given to Axis of Evil report card.

One last thing; unlike many who not even dare mention the idea of military force, I would like to suggest that diplomacy coupled with sheer brutality isn't a bad idea at all. In the words of William Drodziak: "U.S and European assets are complementary. Europe penchant for offering diplomatic incentives should be combined with America's tendency to threaten with military force."

2 comments:

Gus Van Rant said...

"Can one simply come to the conclusion the Axis of Evil report card has failed simply because it is not looking too good at the moment?"

Yes, one can.

To back up my Libya point, I direct everyone to Fareed Zakaria's lastest column in Newsweek (Fareed supported the Iraq war at the outset, so labeling him a damn, dirty liberal isn't approriate):

Fareed.

The Geriatric Three said...

Gus-
To be fair, while I can't call Mr. Zakaria a "damn, dirty liberal," I can safely write him off as a flip-flopper. Burn.