Pay More Than Lip Service To Diplomacy

Bob Schieffer Reminds The U.S. That There Is No Military Solution In Iraq

(CBS)  Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

---

I had breakfast the other day with the ambassador from one of America's strongest and closest allies. We got to talking about Iraq and Vietnam, and he asked me what I thought the great lessons of those years have been.

I said, first, that we can help people but we can't do it for them, and, second, that America leads best when it leads by example – when we demonstrate how our system works by practicing what we preach, not by resorting to the methods of those who oppose us.

"May I suggest one more thing?" he asked. "That America is most successful when it does not work alone, but with its friends."

"America has the strongest economy in the world and without question the most powerful military, but when it has tried to work alone, it has seldom been able to work its will," he continued. "Yet when it has been able to forge broad coalitions it has seldom failed."

That is more than opinion. It's just a fact which makes me wonder, even at this eleventh hour, shouldn't that be the focus of our Iraq policy? Bringing together a broad coalition of western nations and Iraq's neighbors to contain the war and pressure its warring factions to settle their differences?

Instead, we have paid lip service to diplomacy, made the debate about battlefield tactics and searched for a military solution to a political problem.

So far, we haven't found one.

If you would like to do more than just remember those who serve in the armed forces on this Memorial Day, I invite you to contact three fine organizations who help our wounded and their families:

The Walter Reed Society

Fisher House

The Yellow Ribbon Fund

---

E-mail Face the Nation.

[stl-mo-usa]

Mr. Schieffer,

Great Article !!!

Also on this Memorial Day ,let our troops know we support them, send e-mails to our men & women. I do not have any family members serving but do know that the fine men & women fighting appreciate those " letters" --even from a stranger like myself. I've been sending e-mails & yes, our fine Heros read them & do respond if they can !!
God Bless & Keep them safe.

[xzavierbrown]

*******That is more than opinion. It's just a fact which makes me wonder, even at this eleventh hour, shouldn't that be the focus of our Iraq policy? Bringing together a broad coalition of western nations and Iraq's neighbors to contain the war and pressure its warring factions to settle their differences?*******

the fact is that the UN is more corrupt than Enron..the EU is perhaps the most divided union..and Middle Eastern nations i.e. Lebanon and Syria, Iran and Iraq are all after each other's neck and assets..ALL ARE FIGHTING FOR THIER OWN PERSONAL AGENDAS..
your opinion would work if we can find somebody to work with..till then we must fight our wars alone.

[diplomacy3]

The article ignores the most important change that's taking place - the Chinese and Russian military and economic boom that's eclipsing the US influence in the Middle East and elsewhere. This could ultimately turn into a greater alliance drawing indigenous nuclear and non-nuclear powers to its fold. Let us see how long our current skeletal alliance in Iraq and Afghanistan survive.

[feelfree1]

Re: "I had breakfast the other day with the ambassador from one of America's strongest and closest allies."

I hope that it he was not from the crappy, failing, rogue-terror-welfare-State of Israel. They obviously are not in a position to offer any credible advice to anyone.

Re: "It's just a fact which makes me wonder, even at this eleventh hour, shouldn't that be the focus of our Iraq policy? Bringing together a broad coalition of western nations and Iraq's neighbors to contain the war and pressure its warring factions to settle their differences?"

Absolutely not. Our focus should be on ending the self-defeating and illegal fraud-based war of aggresion against Iraq, bringing the Bush regime and collaborators before a war crimes tribunal, and establishing a reparations fund for the Iraqi, Afghan, and American victims of the illegitimate and mass-murderous Bush cabal!

The Iraq disaster was fought alone because our leader refused to listen to world opinion which said stay out of Iraq...it is a mistake. Mr. Schieffer offers very good advice and I hope that Bush will finally see the light...but I doubt it@!

[socrates392]

"It's just a fact which makes me wonder, even at this eleventh hour, shouldn't that be the focus of our Iraq policy? Bringing together a broad coalition of western nations and Iraq's neighbors to contain the war and pressure its warring factions to settle their differences?"

As usual, Bob nails it! Great opinion piece, Bob! I just wish you would go back to anchoring the evening news. It hasn't been the same since you left!

[alanrobisch]

Mr Schiefer you are right but I fear we are in a world where alliances are hard to come by and are not enduring. The UN is unable to enforce its own mandates. We entered the conflict in Iraq because of the attempt by Iraq to control the middle east. Patience may have been a better idea in the instance of invading Iraq. I think it represents 20-20 hind sight to be as critical of what has happenned as most americans are currently and the democratic party virtually in toto. I was just watching a civil war documentary about sherman's march. In March 1864 Lincoln had serious reasons to believe that he would not be re-elected and that this was because as usual with the rare exception of WW2 the US public seems to lack perserverance in the face of difficulty during a war. While hundred of thousands were being killed in Europe Roosevelt had to promise no involvement in the war and took impeachable actions so we could prevent England from falling. We as a Americans are extremely short sighted both prospectively and have virtually no historical sense. If it its not working now lets get out no matter the consequences. Please note at the point Truman left office only had 22% of the public behind because we were in a much more brutal and deadly war and we were not winning. He is now widely respected as a president.

[tomtomasters]

Truman is not widely respected for his insane act of terror in dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan targeting innocent civilians instead of their military. He did it to save his own skin and end the war, but he did it on his own; against advice from many in his cabinet, having James Forrestal beinging murderer or as the story goes committ suicide. Truman was and still is consider a reckless maniac worse than Bush, since Bush hasn't hit the button yet.

[alanrobisch]

I have a bachelor's degree in american history. While I was studying american history he was thought of well because of his actions in standing up to Mccarthur His use of the Marshall plan greatly disliked by many at the time that helped restore europe and prevented further control of europe by the communists. His bombing of Japan was widely debated and was an extraordinarily difficult decision. He did it with the hope of saving many lives namely americans and japaneese. An invasion of Japan would have resulted in the loss of more lives than those lost in hiroshima and nagasaki. Many times over. I have heard estimates of millions.

[alanrobisch]

Note the fire bombings of dresden authorized by fdr or similar fire bombings of tokyo. Please also note kamikaze attacks on american ships or the huge number of casualties incurred while taking okinawa. I find it amazing that you think it made him crazy to try and end the war in a way that minimized loss of life. I haven't heard you call FDR crazy. Lincoln authorized Sherman's march to the sea which is widely critized. Was Lincoln crazy? He also allowed US Grant to use union soldiers as battering rams with huge losses to end the civil war.

[rafterman1]

Anyone who studies the history of Japan, especially WWII, understands the Japanese mentality. The conclusion is, the atomic bombings could not be avoided.

The atomic bombings did save lives assuming that an invasion of Japan was necessary. So the question really is, was Japan going to surrender before October, 1945, the scheduled date of the invasion? Could we just "wait it out"?

Well, days prior to the surrender radio message broadcast by the Emperor, a group of officers tried to seize control of the government to continue the war. Only due to the invervention of a senior Japanese officer was the coup attempt avoided. So, "war fever" was still strong in Japan. In addition, while Japan's navy and air force were smashed, they still had a rested million+ men in Manchuria. And the experience of Okinawa taught that Japanese civilians would fight. Most historians agree that the Japanese were far from defeated.

While the atomic bombings were horrible, it is unfair to use 20-20 hindsight, with the advantage of 60 years of history, to condemn Truman. With the passage of time, the decision to bomb might not have been necessary. But back in 1945, through 1945 eyes and knowledge, there was really little choice.

[book54552134]

Diplomacy under the Bush Administration?
Well, lets see - What kind of diplomacy does it take to launch a unilateral Crusade into Muslim Iraq without the support of the UN or most of the World?
Diplomacy? This Administration doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

[kesac4650]

What we have here, is just your basic infomercial.
There are several nations who have stood by our side from day one in Iraq. Of course you would never know that from Mr. Schieffer's call for us to surrender.
It is also interesting that he is still bleating about diplomacy, when it has been demonstrated for 40 years now, that the Jihadist's will not negotiate on any issue.
There will certainly never be a negotiated settlement, when half of our Senate, and a great deal of our media are telling the Muslim world, that they will ultimately win.
It is a good thing FDR never had to deal with such backstabbers during his administrations.

[socrates392]

"What we have here, is just your basic infomercial. There are several nations who have stood by our side from day one in Iraq."

Posted by kesac4650 at 11:21 PM : May 27, 2007

It is interesting, kesac4650, that you don't actually cite these allies by name. Are you talking about Britain, Spain and Poland? Spain is already gone. Britain go bye-bye now. And I don't think Poland is really the kind of ally that Bob is talking about.

No one thinks the "jihadists" are going to negotiate . . . but the legitimate governments of Middle Eastern countries will. We need their help if we ever hope to create stability in Iraq . . . unless you think it would be better to permanently occupy Iraq and become a evil imperial power?

If we go it alone in Iraq, we go down alone.

P.S. Opinion pieces are supposed to persuade you, much like an "infomercial." Kudos to you for almost correctly identifying the genre of writing! That's special.

[tbweb]

I read an interesting article recently about the real problem with a lot of oil rich Arab nations. They never had any real infrastructure to start with; most of the Arab citizens are uneducated or under educated and Arab societies lack the basic services and institutions usually available in the West. The article compared most Arab nations to that old Beverly Hillbillies TV show where the Beverly Hillbillies woke up one day and found themselves rich from sitting on a lot of oil. They have a lot of oil and are rich as a result, but they have little else and the U.S. is faced with the daunting task of building their infrastructure, social services and citizen centric society from scratch, not repairing a broken one, it never existed in the first place and that could take decades and is not the U.S. job or what we went to Iraq for!

[mcvet]

There are several nations who have stood by our side from day one in Iraq. Of course you would never know that from Mr. Schieffer's call for us to surrender.
It is also interesting that he is still bleating about diplomacy, when it has been demonstrated for 40 years now, that the Jihadist's will not negotiate on any issue.
There will certainly never be a negotiated settlement, when half of our Senate, and a great deal of our media are telling the Muslim world, that they will ultimately win.
It is a good thing FDR never had to deal with such backstabbers during his administrations.
Posted by kesac4650 at 11:21 PM : May 27, 2007

Oh PLEASE!! Everyone knows what went down and it's rediculous for you fascist to continue this Play. Bush insulted and lied to all and I do mean all our oldest and dearest friends in his drive to attack Iraq. When you look at polls of our allies and see what the citizens of those nations think of Bush you can realize just how deep the problem really is. For example over 80% of the Citizens of Germany found the present day Republican Party and Bush to be FASCIST! In Britian, the public found Bush to be worse that the leader of North Korea... NORTH KOREA for God sake!! Now we can continue this march to fascism folks but do not expect anymore success than Hitler or the Klan have had. It's a dead end road and we still HAVE to live in this world. All the bombs and Jets we can build will NOT bring us back to being the LEADER of the FREE WORLD.

[mcvet]

It is a good thing FDR never had to deal with such backstabbers during his administrations.
Posted by kesac4650 at 11:21 PM : May 27, 2007


Were you raised on another planet?? LOL History clearly shows that Conservatives fought FDR at every turn when he attempted to help Britain and France in their fight against Hitler. No wonder you freaks are Fascist... you know so little of the past and you know so little about what true LEADERSHIP is. To you if you can't intimidate or force people to follow you then those people aren't worthy of your "Superior" leadership? LOL Sieg Heil

[csmith1948]

MCVET,
You got it wrong, Bush is a Texan not a southerner. There is a difference. Although I agree on some of the things you post, you hatred of southerners is unjustified.

[alanrobisch]

mcvet please define fascist. If as you say the british think less of George Bush than Kim IL Jong I think it proves that people are stupid ignorant uninformed et cetera the world over. KIm IL Jong has allowed his people to starve built up his army all to make himself powerful. He needs to have nuclear weapons why because he has intentionally antagonized every one around him in his quest for power. This includes the Japaneese who are essentially pacifists.

[ananar]

Seeing some of these posts, either the attack is on GW "the fascist" or Schieffer the white flag waver. You folks need a little reminder. We went into Iraq on many rationales, all very much a matter of public record, and you could avail yourselves of the facts on this at any time. Why don't you? We went to Iraq with a "coalition of the willing," most of whom contributed little to no troops. The bulk of the war dead in 2007 continues to be American. The bulk of the war costs in 2007 continues to come from the U.S. taxpayers. Note, this was actually NOT what was promised in 2002/2003 as this nation prepared for an invasion of Iraq. Also noted, it was the GW administration, Rumsfeld in particular, who argued the need for a pull out of the troops in a particular time frame. Because (Cobra II), he didn't want another Bosnia. We had all those benchmarks and time frames for creating a democracy in Iraq. Those goals were met. Of making Iraq a post Saddam sovereign nation. That goal was met. So why are we still an occupying force in Iraq 4 years later and trying to referee a civil war? For those of you attacking Schieffer, it is because GW screwed up as to who he sent to Iraq as the CPA head: J. Paul Bremer. At this late date, the better plan for victory would seem to be diplomacy for Iraq so that we can have the resources for protecting this nation from terrorist attack, now seriously underfunded; our priorities straight for dealing with Al Qaeda, not bogged down in Iraq.

[alanrobisch]

ananar you make sense but I wonder if you think as I do that withdrawal of american troops will result in another dictatorship this time shiite and an even worse blood bath of sunni's plus the even better situation for al Queada to use it as a launching place for terrorist attacks.

[ananar]

alan, this is what I think: Al Qaeda can go anywhere to create training camps. Al Qaeda can use the internet to find recruits. Why do we assume, given the Al Qaeda attacks against our allies, from Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, against Australia and its citizens in Indonesia, in Spain and Great Britain, that Al Qaeda must in fact operate out of Iraq or that Al Qaeda must operate out of Afghanistan? Al Qaeda is now operational, apparently in Pakistan. They are working hand in hand with the Taliban, and Afghanistan is becoming increasingly destabilized. Pakistan's gvt makes many assurances, but NATO and American forces are still getting the brunt of bold Taliban, etc. attacks. To date, we haven't touched Pakistan. Then turn your attention to Lebanon where it has been reported on CNN that Al Qaeda has found willing recruits among Palestinians in their various refugee camps. As a consequence bloody warfare has broken out between the "pro-western" Lebanese gvt and the Palestinians. What makes you think that GW has truly bottled up Al Qaeda in Iraq and our continued presence in that country is the only guarantee they will stay in Iraq? Maybe you ought to ask next, why I make sense? Al Qaeda is a global operation. They can attack anywhere, anytime, against anyone. So why isn't GW particularly serious about national security?

[ananar]

Further, GW and Bremer made much of deBa'athifcation that greatly affected people who were mostly Sunni. It took them out of jobs. An insurgency (read Bob Woodward here) was practically created overnight because we (the American gvt) basically made certain promises we had no intention of fulfilling. What follows is a matter of public record, Sunni boycotts of the democratic votes that created a mostly Shi'ite (and pro-Iranian) government. To this day, GW has yet to accept any real accountability regarding his very and dangerously naive take on Iraq. Should a Shi'ite dictatorship exist, the Buck does stop and GW's desk. Eventually, the troops withdraw, there is no choice in the matter. GW on Memorial Day, Iraq and Afghanistan is "our" destiny. Not really, his failures in BOTH countries are HIS legacy.

[bluestardad]

WE HAVE BEEN DRAWN INTO IRAQ OUTSIDE AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST!

This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.


CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!

HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! CONTACT THEM!

Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Steny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/


READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!

http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm

REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!

EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh

50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!

THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

[alanrobisch]

ananar It seems you have followed it Much more closely than I have but I think you are wrong in calling Aghanistan a failure. it is not in chaos. It is not completely stable but this may not be a reasonable expectation. It is is no longer an open sewer where Al Quaeda ruled without interruption. This same situation could be created in Iraq. Note I thought, though you state differently, that a major reason the Sunni's did not want to vote because they felt they would have no voice in the govt and wished to invalidate the govt by not voting. I personally think an iron military dictatorship by us with substantialy more troops would have been better. It might also have served us better to leave the lower level non ideological baathists in their govt positions possibly allowing for a smoother transitions.

In all it seems you are stating that we have failed in preventing further terrorism here in the US and that no matter what we do in Iraq even help create a stable state it would be to no avail . In this I totally disagree. We may completely fail in Iraq and I suspect this will be for lack of will and perseverance not ability but I cannot accept your premise that we have failed in preventing terrorism in our country or that the use of money there has created an inability to defend ourselves

[rals1]

Sounds like the world needs a diplomatic organization to sort through world issues. We should call it ...... The United Nations! Oh wait! Isn't that the group Bush thumbed his nose at when he said he was attacking Iraq, no matter what?

[texmexborderswimmer]

To bluestardad, don't you live on more than a one track mind????? your anti-jewish posts are booooooring.