Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Foreign policy encompasses a lot of territory, political, military, and economic. The essence is that each nation in the world relates to all others in a way that can best benefit the people of that country, or those in power. That is the significant difference in policies.

Diplomacy around the world has always been a bastion for the well-connected, the political elite, of the world. There is a culture of aristocracy which has grown as men and women travel the world visiting with others of similar background. Diplomats, by nature and training, expect to be listened to with reverence. Their goal is to maintain the status-quo, not upsetting anyone’s apple cart. Stability is paramount. Without stability, they would be unable to travel freely enjoying the pleasures and perks of position.

We uncouth Americans don’t understand the ways of the world. Well, except for maybe a few of our more privileged class residing in the Hamptons, Georgetown, or Malibu. We like to think our political leadership and appointed diplomats serve us, not the other way around. We expect our diplomats to use logic and reason in relating to those of other nations. We expect them to act in our best interests.

That’s not how the game is played.

Bush upset the apple cart. And Kerry wants to set it right. That is what this election is about. For all the rhetoric we’ll hear over the next six months, that is the long and short of it. This weekend, Kerry accused Bush of having a “stunningly ineffective” foreign policy and worst of all, he said that the war on terrorism wasn’t primarily a military struggle. (from NealzNuze)

What he wants, along with most of the diplomatic world, is a return to discussion. He wants the UN to have the lead role in Iraq, which means rule by diplomat.

The diplomatic dictionary defines “effective foreign policy” as that which leads to continual dicussion, and an occasional resolution. In those terms, I agree with Kerry’s assessment. Bush has not followed the lead of those career diplomats who believe you should never make anyone mad. Even if they do everything they can to make you mad. An “effective foreign policy” is one which best benefits the political elite of the world. It is one which enriches people like Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, Yassir Arafat, and Saddam Hussein. The elite continue to live well, be highly spoken of, and travel on someone else’s dime.

Kerry is also correct that the war on terrorism isn’t primarily a military struggle. Bush has never claimed it was. But it’s a charge he cannot counter overtly. But military action must be a part of the battle. Otherwise, economic and political efforts are ineffective. Sarah wrote about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance today, and this very issue. Kerry still cannot say what he would do differently. The UN has no troops, and their bureaucrats pulled out of Iraq faster than the Spaniards.

My fear is that Bush will change course and attempt to appease these losers of the world. Appeasing the UN is no different from appeasing terrorists. They are cut from the same cloth. Any negotiation is seen as weakness. And anything we do will still not be enough to save the US from condemnation in the UN. If we give in, they will simply pat us on the head and say, “That’s okay. We all make mistakes when we are children. Sit back there on the bench and let us adults make things all nice again.”