Further down the short dialog, there was this interesting bit:
bgwertzman - 04:50pm Aug 20, 2003 EST (# 13 of 19)
Any thoughts on the diplomacy which led up to the Iraq invasion? It seems to me that the US should definitely have waited a couple of months to see if the French might have come along and to give the inspectors more time. As it is do you agree that all the talk about weapons of mass destruction that have not been found have weakened the administration's credibility?
gideonrose - 04:53pm Aug 20, 2003 EST (# 14 of 19)
Former assistant secretary of state James Rubin has a good piece on the botched prewar diplomacy in the new (September/October) issue of Foreign Affairs. I largely agree with his points, so I'll just refer people to the piece. One thing I'll say is that we should hardly be surprised that the diplomacy failed, because it seems to have been guided not by any diplomats but rather by the folks in the administration who would prefer that the rest of world just take a hike. I think the rest of the world got that message, and responded in kind. (That doesn't mean that the French, Germans, and others didn't screw things up also, in stupid and perfidious ways. I don't think anybody really came out of this looking good.)
Um. A little undiplomatic of the usually circumspect Mr. Rose, but appropriate enough. Personally, I figure it would be understandable if the rest of the world told Rummy and the DoD hotheads to take a hike when they come begging for backup, but that's just me. There was great gloating here in the usual fashion about how all the spoils of war and reconstruction would fall to the US, it all seems a bit ironic now.
My own modest proposal, in light of the attempted neocon Powell push-out of a few weeks back, would be to nominate one of the PNAC luminaries for a more proximate job. Perhaps Wolfowitz or one of the other latter-day Lawrences ought to take a shot at Bremer's job instead of Powell's. They got all the answers, why not put them into practice directly? |
