[...] flow up to Bush nonetheless. He’s since retired from the State Department, and has written an essay for Newsweek endorsing the Obama foreign policy approach, specifically in regards to talking to ones [...]

It seems more embarassing when someone would ignore a foreign policy heavyweight of their own party who feels strongly enough about something to cross such a staunchly held party line.

McCain's lack of willingness to attempt diplomacy and his unfounded faith in the limitless power of the military shows that he drank the neocon koolaid long ago. One can only hope that after the Great Transcender takes office the Neocons will retreat back to their think tanks and never come close to the reigns of power again.

Burns completely misrepresents McCain's statements. McCain was mocking Obama for his naivety for being willing to meet with them "without preconditions". In the debates, McCain was quite clear that diplomacy could go on, but not at the highest levels without conditions. It's simply a parody of McCain's statements that is being attacked here.

Also, why should "being in the State Department" (even very high up!) make one an expert on what diplomacy achieves results (especially the desired ones, rather than just "more work for diplomats")?

One can typically count on a diplomat to advocate more diplomacy rather than disengagement, no?

As for the power of "crossing lines" as showing how Important This Is... it's not like the State Department has exactly been a redoubt of Bush Loyalty these past 7 years, is it?

Chris: Odd. Those "neocons" seem to have done plenty of "diplomacy" and managed to get a number of things done without purely military action.

Diplomacy is no more an end to itself than military action is; both it and military action are means for the arrangement of matters in accord with policy.

This "unfounded faith" in "limitless power" is exampled in exactly which actual statements of Sen. McCain's?

As gecko said, a parody (I'd say caricature, myself) is not a rational basis for opposition.

Honestly, I dont understand why people believe that the US shows strenght by ignoring rogue states. Its not like Chavez will feel so badly that the US is ignoring him that he will suddenly change his views. I also dont fully understand the whole preconditions argument. Its not like these countries want to talk to the US. It seems unlikely they will be willing to change their views before they talk to the US. The preconditions argument is just a nicer way to say "we wont talk to you" because in the end, if you put a high enough precondition, one that you know the other guy wont commit to, then you are making sure you wont talk to him, you just have the upper hand because you can say "hey I'm willing to talk, you just won't meet my demands!".

On the other hand, talking with the enemy is by no means a sign of weakness. It's a sign of openess. When the US ignores another country, it is most likely this will fuel the rogue leaders anti-american speech. On the contrary, if the US is willing to hear their demands first and then rebukes them with sound and rational answers, then the rogue leader will be weakened, since he will have to find a better argument to fuel his anti-american speech, and since this will prove harder given the quality and logic of the American response, then the rogue leader will loose the confidence of his people who used to look up to him as a protector against US abuses due to the one-sided speeches they got from their leader.

No one who regards George W. Bush with the contempt I do should attempt to assess the importance of "Bush Loyalty" to a correct understanding of diplomacy in American foreign relations. I leave this task to Bush's remaining fervent admirers, who I have no doubt would remain his admirers no matter what he did as long as he remained publicly hostile to liberals and the media.

Nicholas Burns does not actually come out for Sen. Obama's approach to foreign policy, or denounce Sen. McCain's. This is one of those cases in which there is a disconnect between Real World and Campaign World. Real World McCain and Obama probably disagree on exactly when and how to approach a country like Iran. The Bush administration, paralyzed by a bureaucratic stalemate between the State and Defense Departments on the one side, the Vice President on the other, and a weak President unable to choose between them, has left a decision made years ago to try isolating Iran on autopilot. Real World McCain listens to foreign policy advice from people of widely varying opinions -- he always has -- and in a McCain administration Dick Cheney would not be Vice President, but Campaign World McCain feels compelled to adopt the closest thing to a position on Iran the Bush administration has.

This isn't just a matter of loyalty on his part. It's also one of tactics. Early in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Obama made an ill-advised response to a debate question that endorsed the idea of negotiations with Iran at the head of government level, without preconditions. It was safe enough at the time, given the debate's primarily liberal Democratic audience, but it was not what most foreign policy professionals on the Democratic side thought Obama should say. He has urged negotiations, but not at the head of government level and with preparations, not preconditions, ever since.

What happened? Real World Obama got a question on a subject he hadn't thought about much, and gave an answer he was easily talked out of. But Campaign World Obama knows that the worst charge that can be made against a candidate is that he is a Flip-Flopper. He doesn't want to give any ammunition to people charging that he is inexperienced in the foreign relations field, either. So Campaign World Obama has stonewalled; he never said he'd be willing to meet the Iranian President without preconditions, he never even thought such a thing, he has always believed in careful preparation before negotiations, and so forth. Campaign World McCain, following the rules of that universe, has seen an opportunity to criticize Obama for taking a position Obama did actually take but is not taking anymore. Campaign World Obama takes some heat for denying he believes what he earlier said he believed, but reckons this is preferable to admitting publicly that he changed his mind (or, in the language of Campaign World) that he Flip-Flopped, on negotiating with Iran.

It can be exhausting to keep Real World and Campaign World straight, way more than telling the realities apart was in The Matrix films or the Star Trek mirror universe. Nicholas Burns, who exists only in Real World, doesn't get Campaign World at all. Not understanding its language or rules, he assumes that positions announced in Campaign World can be considered, endorsed or denounced at face value. Well, sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. And sometimes it's hard to tell.

A bit of dishonest editing by Prof. Drezner there. As Burns says in one of the ellipses, he was a career diplomat who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. He isn't a Republican loyalist driven to Obama by the Republicans' having gone made, or the unique wonderfulness of The One.

Not more dishonest than usual, though.

"One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez."

This would be a truthful statement if one key word were inserted: "whether the United States should talk unconditionally..."

Tell me this: when was the last time that negotiations that did not involve the threat of US force (military, economic, etc.) actually work with regard to a thug government?

Chris:
There is a reason why Bill "William the Bloody" Kristol endorsed McCain over GWB in 2000.

Is it more embarrassing than having the French President going around calling your foreign policy immature and that you're an empty suit?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html

of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

Sure. Which doesn't mean without preconditions either. Sen. Obama at times has made statements that sound like we should agree to negotiate no matter what, at any time of the adversaries' choosing and that there is never a time when it is not in our interest, just as Sen. McCain has made comments at times that sound like we should never negotiate with certain adversaries.

Both are likely negotiating tactics themselves; consider that "evil empire" President Reagan was able to sit down with Gorbachev.

And the "former no. 3" was also a 27 year career diplomat, which, as noted, means that he served in multiple Administrations. It doesn't make him a "foreign policy heavyweight" in the GOP.

The diplomat is playing a bit of a shell game here. McCain has scorned Obama's desire to talk with roague leaders without preconditions. I think he wants to feather his nest a bit and play the role of the big foreign policy illuminati guru.

@ Sigivald

Think back to the arguments leading up to the Iraq war and those arguments justifying it thereafter, that McCain fully supported. The line was that the military could invade a country like Iraq, build a democracy from the ruins, and from that democracy would be a domino of democracies spreading around an area of the world that is known more for clan rivalry than for individual rights and the rule of law. Perhaps I am guilty of an unnecessary use of hyperbole when I say that McCain and the neocons think that military power is “limitless”, but given what they thought that it could accomplish in the Middle East without even a draft, the word “limitless” comes pretty close.

As to whether McCain believes in the effectiveness of diplomacy or force, I think that it would be fair to say that McCain has been a little less than diplomatic in his rhetoric towards Russia, the “resurgent threat”. When speaking of Iran he is equally bellicose: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/02/mccain_calls_iran_foremost_mid.html

Finally, to say that neocons have consistently advocated the use of force over the use of diplomacy is only to state the obvious. A little google search of Project for the New American Century, American Enterprise Institute, “A Clean Break” etc.. will show how much actual diplomacy neocons advocate.

You are 100% right to say that diplomacy and force are both only the means to an end. I would add that of the two, the former is far more preferable.

Professor Drezner,

I might think it more worrying that absolutely no Democratic Party mandarins see fit to complain about this part of Sen. Obama's campaign website, especially the trade section. No one in the Clinton Administration wants to defend NAFTA at all?

Is everyone so sure that most of Sen. Obama's rhetoric is a lie?

Cheris: I'd reply that diplomacy is merely veiled force; diplomacy without something else behind it depends merely on the goodwill of the other party, and that's not a place to be when dealing with eg. North Korean or Iran.

Further I don't recall the President (or indeed anyone else) saying that Democracy would automatically follow throughout the middle east simply from invading Iraq and setting up a democratic government there. I recall various arguments that for any chance of the former, the latter was a necessary first step.

I also recall the President's addresses to the UN and on the State of the Union both mentioning many justifications for invading Iraq, with "spreading democracy throughout the middle east" being very low on the list if mentioned at all. Lots of talk of the brutal nature of the regime, its repeated attacks on neighbors, its intransigence on WMD inspections*, and how democracy would certainly be an improvement. Not so much about an inevitable domino effect.

(* In hindsight evidently an attempt on Hussein's part to ride the brink between keeping Iran in fear of his notional hidden WMDs and keeping the UN/US not sure enough he had anything to invade, while hoping for an end to sanctions so he could rearm.

Didn't work out too well, since he convinced the US he had what he didn't, leading to invasion and his overthrow.)

(And, yes, I 'm familiar with PNAC.

Given that even in the beginning, in 1998, they were advocating sanctions rather than military threats to deal with nuclear proliferation, the idea that PNAC and "the neocons" are somehow militarist diplomacy-haters seems hard to substantiate.

My own take - not necessarily applying to you, but to the typical reaction I've seen elsewhere - is that people seem to confuse openly admitting that military action is part of the calculus, and that it's in specific cases going to be the only thing that will work, with an assertion that it's somehow the preferred option generally.

I see no reason to believe that to be so, based on the actual published writings or public actions of "neocons", without far more specific references than "PNAC and AEI".)

What ever respect i had for Nicholas Burns, i just lost it. What a winding platitudinous article with nothing concrete in it !

All you "talkers" answer these following questions before they gain any respect

A. What are you willing to negotiate with thug nations? How much are you willing to give up? And for what in return?

B. Do you seriously think that back channel talks never happen? in fact these talks happen pretty much all the time. With Iran, Ryan Crocker US Ambassador for Iraq had direct contact and talks - to no avail. this meeting did not just happen - there were back channel talks to get to this stage.

C. Why is it that you think that every event in the world is driven by what America does ? Do you think that Iran, Venezuela have no policies/interests of their own - and that every thing they do is driven by what American foreign policy is/isnt ?

With or without US presence Iran has ambitions to be the dominant power in the ME. Like wise Venezuela with Latin America.

D. What would you do when talks fail ? Like the talks between the EU and Iran which have been going on for the last 5 years ?

Sarkozy is now on record saying that Obama has no CLUE vis-a-vis Iran - worse, he calls him ARROGANT ! imagine that !

All we get from the "diplomacy is the greatest" crowd are platitudes and more platitudes.

Next thing you know we all need to work to end global poverty. Sigh.

Professor Drezner,

Do you really think the article was a fair statement of McCain's position?