Pay More Than Lip Service To Diplomacy

(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.
By Bob Schieffer

[texmexborderswimmer]

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

[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?

[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

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

[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.