Should we intervene in Libya? This is the subject of a fierce debate at National Review. The editors say yes; Andrew McCarthy and Victor Davis Hanson say no. (As do I.)
Meanwhile, the havering continues at Foggy Bottom. Regarding the escalating Iran vs. Sunni Arab proxy war in Bahrain, Hillary Clinton said yesterday in Egypt that:
“Our message is consistent and strong: There is no way to resolve the concerns of the Bahraini people through the use of excessive force or security crackdowns. There have to be political negotiations that lead to a political resolution.”
There “have” to be? And what, exactly, will we do if there aren’t? We’ve been awfully quick, lately, to say what is “unacceptable”, what “must” happen, and so on, but it is becoming increasingly obvious to all — particularly after our waffling on Mubarak’s departure — that our words these days mean almost nothing. “Speak softly, and carry a big stick,” wrote Teddy Roosevelt; instead we prefer to speak loudly and often, and it is increasingly clear to all that we can barely lift the stick.
7 Comments
I’m not sure what bone you’re picking with Secretary Clinton: what she said looks like just sort of an endorsement of peace as opposed to war. You’re making a slightly different point, by acting oblivious to diplomatic doubletalk, so to speak.
No, when the US says something “has” to happen, and then it doesn’t, and we do nothing about it, it makes us look feckless, and people start to understand that we aren’t the “strong horse” we’d like to think (and like them to think) we are. We do ourselves no favors by doing this.
It is extremely important we do as little as we possibly can – and that includes especially any language out of the State Department that cannot (as understood by the directly affected participants) exhibit a quick, decisive and effectively consistent set of actions.
Intervention in Libya? Possible a month ago, maybe even two weeks ago – now – impossible.
This point might seem obscure – but it was precisely that “diplo-speak” which helped tinder the flotsam gathering in disparate piles.
Mr. Kaplan,
Since you choose to defend Ms. Clinton’s diplomatic double-talk, would you care to explain the diplomatic benefit we derive from her frequent use of the word “unacceptable”?
JK has it right. Diplomatese has never been amenable to literal interpretation, by design. It’s all about innuendo and “coded” messages. That’s from the lesson plan for day 1 of International Politics 101.
OK then, it’s all innuendo and code.
Does anyone actually know what is meant, implied, or even insinuated by the word “unacceptable”?
Anyone?
Well… TheBigHenry – if you are really that interested in what the diplo-speak definition of “unacceptable” means – gather up six months of provisions and plant yourself in front of a TV.
Make sure you’ve got the electric bills paid in advance and someone to check (and empty as necessary) the empty (except for…) the five gallon pail next to your CheeseDoodles.
At the end of six months, you’ll have a pretty good idea what the word means.
For a less strenuous regimen – check whether the word was ever uttered in reference to either Darfur or Rwanda.