Friedman Starts School of Diplomacy - World Immediately Regresses to Stone Age

Tom Friedman, Esquire is at it again using manatees to bring up random words and joining them in a sentence with verbs and adjectives. The magic words of the day are 'diplomacy' and 'lever'; here is the introduction to his op-ed.

It would consist of a single classroom with a desk and a chair. At the desk would be a teacher, pretending to be a foreign leader. The student would come in and have to persuade the foreign leader to do something — to pull this or that lever. At one point, the foreign leader would nod vigorously in agreement and then reach behind him and pull the lever — and it would come off the wall in his hands. Or, he would nod vigorously and say, “Yes, yes, of course, I will pull that lever,” but then would only pretend to do so.

The student would then have to figure out what to do next.

Hmmmmmm. How much smack did Friedman score before writing this paragraph?

“Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be diplomats.”

This is not the great age of diplomacy.

Pearl or swine? Oink oink. What is the definition of great age of diplomacy for him? A time when everyone kept their promises no matter what?

Once you look past Friedman calling all mothers 'Mama' whether they're his own or not, you realize the man may have a point. If you're going to indulge in nation-building do it the right way and not some half-assed attempt like Iraq. The decision to clear out Afghanistan was made 8 years ago and he might remember the catalytic event that led to it. Pakistan is a by-product of its own deficiencies and the crumbling of the border between the two countries, leading to a merged rebellion force gaining ground all round. So Friedman seems to be right, plain old sweet talking by smooth diplomats won't work and some old fashioned blood and iron will be needed to forge the foundations of these two countries. Is it possible in the current scenario? I don't know but I hope Friedman or someone else does.

And in the case of the strong states — Iran and North Korea — we would have to generate much more effective leverage from the outside to get them to change their behavior along the lines we seek. In both cases, though, success surely would require a bigger and longer U.S. investment of money and power, not to mention allies.

No shit, Sherlock. Though at what point, diplomacy wouldn't be leading the charge stumps me. How does he plan to use leverage without diplomacy? Friedman seems to think these are the first countries unwilling to follow through on a promise. Won't engaging with Iran diplomatically be the first step to getting them to a negotiating table or should the Security Council keep barking threats out to them? Kim Jong Il in that last bastion of Stalinism knows exactly what he is doing. He gets the attention of the world with his histrionics and then pulls out another set of bargains. Very effective. How about using more leverage on China to force Kim to the table? Figuring out the right carrots and sticks to use on all parties concerned is a crucial part of diplomacy. If successful, he can even sneak in a few of his own students well versed in the art of watching levers being pulled in all directions.