blatham wrote:
...This is a commonplace idea, repeated in coffee shops and from everyone at the White House..."they only respect force" being the notion. ....
It's a curious assumption and one wonders how the truth of it might be empirically established. Whenever I bump into it, I have some trouble not immediately thinking of a fellow in a muscle shirt discussing how one's wife ought to be managed. Please understand I'm not alluding to you in any personal way here, you are a thoughtful guy. I am though, suggesting that it's equally possible that when Don Rumsfeld makes this claim, we aren't learning far more about him than about Arabs.
It is an interesting question. I believe the truth is that such notions as "they only respect force" are a gross oversimplification and both false and misleading.
However force or the possibility of forceful action is indeed a necessary ingredient in sustained successful influence or in the exercise of power. Machiavelli noted this in his advice to his prince concerning the necessity of being respected and the desirability of being loved. Sun Tsu was even more incisive in his several illustrations of the necessity of occasional cold-hearted application of raw power and the relatively greater suffering that will result if the leader waivers.
The recent furor over the timing of the Administration's announcement that non-coalition countries may not participate in reconstruction contracts in Iraq may be a case in point. Many criticized the supposed ineptitude of the Administration in doing this just as Jim Baker was sent off to negotiate Iraqi debt reduction agreements with France and Germany. Now we see that France and Germany have readily agreed to the desired debt reductions. Did they do this in spite of the earlier announcement, or because of it? Was the Administration's action in this matter stupid and careless, or astute and deliberate? We cannot know with assurance what are the answers to these questions, however it is clear that the announcement did not deter the desired debt reductions and it is highly unlikely that the administration was unaware of the juxtaposition of the two events. The best guess is the Administration's actions were deliberate, and that the results were, if not beneficial, at least not harmful.
It may also be instructive to contemplate the reactions of Kim Jong Il to the events in Iraq. It is noteworthy that he is now participating in regional talks with his neighbors concerning his nuclear weapons and political relations - things which earlier he flatly refused to consider.
