And you state the very crux of the article first:

“President George W. Bush, like so many before him, succumbed to the illusion that a little personal diplomacy — oiled with a few billion in trade and aid — would secure a dependable ally in a strategic area of the world.”

1. Bush thinks in terms of “cowboy” diplomacy which, actually, is no diplomacy at all. It's a “shoot first” philosophy. And in today's globalization, it stinks.
2. Bush's world is still steeped in back-slapping “good 'ole boys”. That is his fantasy, his break from reality.
3. Bush succumbs to the theory that “liberty” “freedom” “democracy” are the only words you need when talking to people in troubled countries. He has no idea that those words have different meanings for different people.

I've long called Bush history's “Greatest Diplomatic Dimwit.” People laugh when I say it, probably because they think there's more than a grain of truth in that title. But it's sad. His entire administration has become a “back hole” for diplomacy and it will take more than “a little personal diplomacy” for us to grapple up to where we were eight years ago.

And you state the very crux of the article first:

“President George W. Bush, like so many before him, succumbed to the illusion that a little personal diplomacy — oiled with a few billion in trade and aid — would secure a dependable ally in a strategic area of the world.”

1. Bush thinks in terms of “cowboy” diplomacy which, actually, is no diplomacy at all. It's a “shoot first” philosophy. And in today's globalization, it stinks.
2. Bush's world is still steeped in back-slapping “good 'ole boys”. That is his fantasy, his break from reality.
3. Bush succumbs to the theory that “liberty” “freedom” “democracy” are the only words you need when talking to people in troubled countries. He has no idea that those words have different meanings for different people.

I've long called Bush history's “Greatest Diplomatic Dimwit.” People laugh when I say it, probably because they think there's more than a grain of truth in that title. But it's sad. His entire administration has become a “back hole” for diplomacy and it will take more than “a little personal diplomacy” for us to grapple up to where we were eight years ago.

Nonsense. Diplomatic relationships are no more personal than any others. Indeed, for good diplomats, they are likely less personal than most. Diplomacy (in all its forms) is ultimately part of the pursuit of national interests. Personal relationships can be important in that pursuit insofar as they foster communication — Churchill's eagerness to write Roosevelt is evidence that he (Churchill) recognized the possibility of influence, or at least of making his voice heard — but they do not, and cannot change interests. At best, they offer windows into others' policies and opportunities to make voices heard that might otherwise go unheard. Personal matter only insofar as they allow communication between states and statesmen (this is not to be overlooked: it the very essence of diplomacy …and, sadly, conveniently ignored by the Bush administration for so long). And, it should be said, not just between statesmen in power (as the Churchill experience suggests). Diplomats and politicians who forget this do so at their own peril.