Leadership or Brinksmanship

Today on Meet the Press, there was talk that the Pentagon has plans for a tactical nuclear strike on Iran. One would naturally suppose that our warriors are continually planning for all manner of possibilities. Nevertheless, why is this in the public discourse? It seems that this is not the time to bring a marshal solution to the public discussion. Has diplomacy become a bad word? Do we now have a "D" word to go along with our "N" word and "C" word? This is not leadership. This is brinksmanship.

There seems to be something genetic in this administration that refuses to put the effort into diplomacy. They love or are compelled to think military first. When this consideration should and must always be the last resort. They appear to think that if a target of their concern is not threatened than any negotiation will not be taken seriously. Its the, " If you don't take us seriously we will kill you," way of doing business.

Where is the quite diplomacy or public diplomacy that will persuade and not coerce? Didn't Kissinger work long and hard going back and forth and back again, and again, doing it all secretly in China and Viet Nam and the Mildest? Didn't Clinton bring all parties to Dayton and to Maryland's eastern shore, all in high profile and in the open? These missions weren't done on a 2 hour stop over. It takes time and patience and effort.

Maybe that is what it is. Petulant children want everything and they want it now. They have no patience for waiting or compromise. They see no value in it. Could this be how this administration views these efforts? If so, this world is even more dangerous than they would have us believe. They really must love this fear footing. In any case, it feels like they always fall back on it when things aren't going their way. So many boogie men and so little time.

"><$BlogItemTitle$>