This is great! An outpouring of love and affection to really make me feel at home.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Good point Tom. I am forgetting my manners....
SEAL Chap. Welcome to the council. When did normal everyday diplomacy become "smart power"?Please forgive my delayed re-entry - I'm en route Afghanistan and access is limited.
As I mentioned at the start, what I'm talking about will raise some hackles about touchy-feely or wishful idealism. Unfortunately, we'll also always have an element of miscommunication in play, and I have to constantly check my message first to reduce the amount I inadvertently create.
Several of you are indisputably spot on, stating that effectively balancing diplomacy and force (or "soft" and "hard") are ancient pillars of international influence and don't benefit from a new catchphrase. I want to publicly announce that I'm not educated or qualified to discuss that level beyond casual speculation.
Where I confused the matter is in emphasizing that international aspect, compared to my actual focus on the inter-personal. I'm borrowing from Nye, Nossel and Clinton because their macro expression structurally reflects my micro view.
JMM, you really got closest to what I should have said, with your reference to Saul Alinsky (my first hearing of him - I'll look him up), and where my point gets still more specific than his "political struggle" is that I'm looking down at a still lower level.
Picture the soccer balls and medicines distributed to little smiling Iraqi kids, with their smiling parents looking on. Picture in contrast a personal security detachment roaring through Baghdad, terrifying those same kids and tearing the rearview mirrors off their parents' cars. Each scenario creates a powerful impression among observers. We need to more persistently measure our message, conscious and otherwise, and work to make un-ugly Americanism a natural state.
Do we have to move aggressively in threat situations? Absolutely. Do we (Sgt Smith, or Cpt Jones) frequently overdo this aggression to a lesser or greater degree for a variety of personal or unit reasons? I say yes. This is the crux.
I've spent more years away from my wife and children than I've lived with them. I've sat in the sand and the mud of a dozen nations, sharing meals from a communal pot, and enjoyed the five-star accommodations of a dozen more. I watched the Islamic fundamentalist attacks of 9/11 live over satellite television, while living overseas with Islamic special forces on an extended training mission.
This personal contact with regular people across the globe makes it painfully clear that government-to-government relations are sometimes in perfect disharmony with the actual will of those citizens. I'm not trying to manipulate the will of states and heads of states, here...merely pointing out that like any great leader, if we recognize unique human talents and interests, we can co-opt the willing energy of human resources worldwide. We can leverage these individually to reduce conflict and better protect those in need.
I know this discussion will stretch on, and I am very grateful to all of you who have chimed in with support or, especially, challenge. My primary tool will have to be anecdotal evidence, because our sharing about a little boy with a melted face in Uzbekistan, or an older, retarded child sprawled pathetically in a baby carriage by his begging grandmother, can tear through an academic exercise and focus the heart of each good man or woman on a solvable problem.
For me, it's exactly about those innocent children on every continent, their needless suffering at the apathetic whim of state-to-state maneuvering, and their mind-blowing potential if offered appropriate opportunity. If only one of them is released to share his God-given talents with the world because of my efforts...my life will make a lot of sense.
One more thing - should I move to a new string and stop clogging up this H&F bin? I'm not familiar with the protocols.
Bookmarks