Talking to Your Enemies

Issue Level: Medium

Issue: Talking to leaders of nations we don't like. This issue first came to my attention in a campaign speech by Barack Obama. Interesting. I've pondered possible advantages and disadvantages, and while I haven't come up with a diffinitive way to determine the best policy, I suspect that the talk-to-anyone approach is best.

For example, why did we invade Iraq the second time? Primarily because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction and they refused to let international inspectors check them out thoroughly. Now we know that they did not have such weapons. So why didn't Saddam Hussein allow the inspectors free access to determine that and report it to the world, knowing that Allied forces might overthrow him if he didn't? Because Iran, with whom they had recently fought a drawn-out war with high casualty rates all around, was still hostile, and still threatening. The possibility of weapons of mass destruction was a serious deterrent to the constantly sabre-rattling Iranians. So Saddam was between a rock and a hard place, let everyone be aware they were weak and risk renewed war with Iran, or try to stall the inspection process and hope other nations (the United States and our Allies) wouldn't go over the brink. Suppose we had been talking with Saddam during those days. Suppose we could have worked out an agreement that allowed the IAEA inspections in secret, so that the Iranians wouldn't find out? Who knows what kind of concessions we could have cajoled out of Saddam? Perhaps we could have gotten him to more toward representative democracy without all the bloodshed and threat of civil war. Who knows? No one. Because we didn't talk.

Policy Proposal: Require our State Department to continually approach all foreign leaders with whom we do not have official relations, in pursuit of initial dialogs and encouraging beligerent nations to move toward peaceful representative democracy.

Rationale: While such discussions may produce no fruit, it is possible that they could yield tremendous benefits, and the cost is neglible.

Disagree? Want to change my mind? Everyone is welcome to submit arguments that are factual and logical. I'm open minded.