Diplomacy

Matt Yglesias writes:

"The question isn't "do we use diplomacy?" the question is what are we trying to do — are we talking about a good faith effort to deal with the Iranian nuclear program in the context of a larger effort to put our polices in the region on the right track, or is the diplomacy part of a larger effort to portray events in the Middle East as a zero sum conflict between the US and Iran."

Right. For a politician to declare his or her belief in the usefulness of "diplomacy" doesn't--in a sane world--tell you anything. It illustrates as much about a candidate's foreign policy views as a declaration of a belief in the usefulness of "hospitals" illustrates about his or her views on health care.

I think that last night's debate was a significant step toward normalizing this country's (or at least its liberal half's) relationship with diplomacy properly used. Bill Richardson said he'd rule out Iran strikes except to prevent the Iranians from using--as distinct from acquiring--nuclear weapons. Barack Obama was both less clear and less brave about where he drew the line, but he did suggest that our outstanding beef with Iran also presented an opportunity to draw them into the WTO and reopen our embassy in Tehran. Dennis Kucinich said he'd work to convince the mullahs to move--for health and environmental reasons, with the help of the United States--away from nuclear power altogether.

All of these are steps in the right direction, but what Matt says is still true. And it's indicative of just how far off the rails our country's foreign policy has fallen.