Bush gets taken in the diplomatic bazaar
My good friend Dean is still suggesting that we did the right thing by dragging our case for regime change through the UN.
I thought it was a mistake right from the start. The UN lost it's credibility as an honest broker decades ago, beginning with the regime of the notorious Kurt Waldheim.
But we went anyway. And now, I think we got more than we bargained for.
Listen to what the normally sympathetic Howard Fineman has to say:
- [D]iplomacy has its uses (we’re depending on the United Nations to pick up the pieces in Baghdad), [but] what’s the use of making things harder than they need to be?
A lot of this has to do with the president’s negotiating style. It’s a mix of Bible Belt certitude and West Texas bluster: You declare that you are in the right, stake the most aggressive land claim in all the oil patch, talk big and strong, and dare them to call your bluff.
But it doesn’t work that way in the Grand Bazaar, where you need to hide your intentions and examine the merchandise with care. The president hasn’t always done either. As a result, he’s been outmaneuvered by some of the world’s slickest shopkeepers: the Turks, the French, even Saddam.
And now Bush is buying war at what could be a very high price.
But the aftermath is going to be crucial. The repercussions will take a few years to work out. POTUS will have to deal with it; as will the following holders of the office (whether or not Bush is re-elected).
- What's the use of making things harder than they have to be?
And I think we've started out badly. Sorry.
Leave a comment