Or in other words, If Maliki doesn't do what we want, we'll do what he wants. Boy that sounds promising.

So, in the worlds of Mr Gates and Frederick the Great, what's the difference between "negotiation" and "coercion"?

It could be a good thing that he sees a strong and capabable military as key to diplomacy, as long as he also recognizes how destructive the current course in Iraq is to our military.

I wonder what they will tell him his position is tomorrow? Must our government hire only people that believe that weapons are made for diplomacy? sad to think that this is all we have.

but it makes sense if you are trying to control a government by corporation, for weapons mean profits. We have substituted paying countries to help them initiate programs to help their citizens, with weapons that we either use on them, or sell to them

this doesn't seem like an effective trade

God only knows about Gates, but "interpreting" that quote to mean "more troops in Iran" is, um, unpersuasive.

Obviously, then as now, negotiations work better when you have the *potential* for military action. Not any different, really, than "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

One could just as well argue that miring our forces *deeper* in Iraq *hurts* our negotiation ability, since it makes it even less likely we could take action elsewhere.

Is it surprising that a bunch of aristocrats only see human relationships as being between someone holding a stick, and someone getting beaten by it?

The Gates' Doctrine

Carry a Big Stick ..and yell a lot

This sounds like the Monty Python routine from the "Pirraha Brothers sketch." First, Doug and Dinsdale threatend to beat up a prospective victim if the victim pays the socalled protection money. Second, they thereaten not to beat the victim up if he doesn't agree to pay the so-called hush money. Finally, they decide they have to threaten to beat up the protection money if he doesn't pay the hush money. This was a break through. Sadly, the brilliant Gates is stuck at stage one of "the operation." I'm not Marxist, but we are at the farce stage. Too bad our military personnel and the people of Iraq are suffering.

Good for Gates. He admires Frederick's the Great's ideas. Now if only he and his boss and some generals would emulate him a little more. Wikipedia notes: "Frederick frequently led his military forces personally. In fact, he had six horses shot from under him during battle." I would be nice if a few of the leaders led our forces. Perhaps then the war would look differently to them.

I do recall in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War the generals used to fight with their troops. How many generals now lead in battle? How many have died in Iraq? Gates should be quoting from Ralph the Timid.

It's Iran stupid and it's just a matter of time—12 months at the outside. Read carefully between the lines of this NYT report, the reporting by Sy Hersch in the New Yorker over the past year, many pieces on the op ed of the WSJ, Bill Kristol's pieces in the Weekly Standard, etc. You think we have problems with the Muslims now, just wait. America is about the embark on a Crusade that will be the mother of all stupidities.

The original editorializing is a stretch enough.

“Negotiations without arms are like music books without instruments.” That’s fine. Makes sense. Then editoralist says...

Or, put another way, it takes military power to create the leverage necessary to make negotiations fruitful. That also makes sense. Without military power, who’s going to listen to you regarding ways to change their country. Nuff said.

Then, you surmise: Here's how that would work in Iraq: the troop buildup is designed as "a source of leverage over the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki" -- the buildup will halt "if Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government does not deliver on promises to send its own troops to Baghdad and not to interfere with operations against Shiite death squads in Baghdad."

Pffftttt................

I think, you’re stringing an original quote, then an expert opinion about 10 steps to far. And I’m a paranoid schitzo planning to vote for Hillary.

Just a thought… You know. Before you write down dumb ideas. Just think them through so you don't sount like. Well a paranoid schitzo.

So that must mean the negotiations with Iran will start soon?

Crust! I just have such a hard time believing that so few people have been able to summarise the lunacy of this escalation as you have. It is so clear that the Shiite factions like their odds in a civil war and that they think our troops are just slowing down the dynamics. As usual Washington is at it again: proposing a solution to the stage of the conflict that has just ended. To take care of the budding insurgency, we needed lots of troops. We put a barebones force in instead. To quell the budding civil strife, we needed to carefully screen the Iraqi recruits to make sure we weren't training sectarian death squads and we needed to reduce our footprint to concentrate on training a national army that could at least secure their national capital. We need to force the national government to act on behalf of the nation, not as an agent of any one sect. We are putting a piddling escalation into effect instead and "threatening" to "punish" the sectarian government if the sectarian government continues to act in a sectarian way - except of course the punishment is exactly what the sectarian government wants in the first place.

It's total madness.

..but, but,..Malaki doesnt WANT us there. Ithink Mr Kiel is misunderstanding the logical follow on to Mr Gates philosophical premise. The logical conclusion ISNT that we will STOP the 'surge'. It is that we have the potential and the will to militarily threaten Malaki's MILITARY assets,ie: the Madi Army. it's a terribly reckless approach , especially given that our logistical vulnerabilities are achingly clear, ie: if we attack Sadr we will subject ourselves to not only shiite guerilla attacks on our supply line, but also attacks BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF !! All is madness.