"[Bush's] inarticulateness has become .. a national securitythreat for theUS"

JS Kelly jskelly@jskelly.com
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:51:02 -0800 (PST)


speculating about the long-term consequences is one of the things that
strategic planning is all about. seems like we need more of that, not
less.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:

> The point being, I can think of far worse
> diplomatic failures that have had no lasting
> consequence. 

OK, i'm game. please name some of them.

> I stand by my original comment
> that it's too soon to draw conclusions which is
> what I think you are saying below too (although
> speculating much more about the long term
> consequences). 

it's too soon to draw conclusions about some things. not too soon to draw
conclusions about other things. 

interesting that we say that international law and international covenants
are irrelevant, but are demanding that saddam abide by the geneva
convention. 

don't get me wrong: of course he should abide by the geneva convention.
but, well -- we should also have abided by international law, don't you
think? 

-jsk

> Jeff Bone wrote:
> 
> > "One little diplomatic mis-step" may have undermined the entire notion
> > of diplomatic / generally non-coercive / international consensus-driven
> > relations between the nations of the world.  We've simultaneously
> > obsoleted the UNSC, possibly the UN itself, the notion that might does
> > not make right, and indeed put in place a totally insane policy of
> > pre-emption of potential future threats through military action.
> > 
> > What happens if that "one little diplomatic mis-step" causes other
> > nations to adopt that same doctrine, and they decide - perhaps with
> > more international consensus than we've got now - that the U.S. WMD
> > capabilities represent a potential future threat to any / many / all
> > other nations?
> >
>