Communications, Negotiations and Diplomacy

HILLARY
Obviously, there is disagreement about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, and why. I don’t think, however, there is any disagreement about the fact that we want our men and women safe at home. But, at this point, I don’t know how we would do that. How do we get out of there?

JACK
I have had a number of heated discussions with people on both sides of the wisdom of what amounted to a preemptive invasion. Why and how we got there is important, but of much greater importance is how we get out. And I get kind of pissed off when I hear a lot of Madison Ave terms applied to war. Words like "Shock and Awe", "Surge", "Phased Withdrawal." These words have a strong ring, but I don’t know what they really mean. The whole point of our blog is to stress the absolute need that we are able to better communicate with each other. This should not only apply to talking with our friends, but we certainly should be talking to those that oppose us. And the conversation should take place long before a gun is fired. A great deal of the time, we will find that active conversation eliminates the need for active killing.

HILLARY
Ok JACK, back it up. I think you said something, before you got a little mad, that is very important. It’s similar to the advice that you gave me in my own life. I had a complicated, dysfunctional childhood. I got myself into situations that we bad for me. But those things are in the past. I have to look to the future. Everyone has those bad stories. The issue is how do I move forward in my life. How do I take the experiences that I’ve had and make good decisions moving forward, fixing the damages that have done? And if we extrapolate that out to the situation in Iraq, we entered into a situation without looking at it completely, and we made bad decisions, but what do we do now? And how do we start to communicate with the people that we have devastated??

JACK
The important fact that you learned and you have used so well recently, is that you cannot change the past, nor can you change the people with whom you are dealing. It’s funny that sometimes we try to change the past by so called "revisionist history". But it never works. Truth always jumps up. SO, let’s talk about our current position, and the possibilities of negotiation. I realized, as I say this that at times negotiation may really be close to impossible because of the deeds that have been committed. Reference – the Nazi horrors and the Japanese aggression in WWII. But if we go back to history, which should be our greatest teacher, we find that immediately after WWII, we not only made friends with our enemies but also helped to bring them into a positive economic position, by exercising the Marshall Plan. This did not stop us from pursuing war criminals with the Nuremberg trials. But first, we must extricate ourselves from the mess. The reality is that after four years of fighting we are in a far worse position that we were when we started. We have to consider not only the drain on our resources but the loss of life – not only American but also Iraqi. History points us to Vietnam, where we didn’t just retreat, we fled, but today, Americans are taking tours and spending holidays in Vietnam. The specifics of how we withdraw from Iraq are not as important as the concept that we must get out. The so-called "new strategy" simply projects an extension of the old strategy. I believe that negotiations are in order. That there should be a meeting of all powers concerned, and everybody should be allowed to express their own specific goals. I would wager that we do not know, truly what are the objectives of the Iranians, Syrians, and the Iraqis. I don’t even know what President Bush means by Victory in Iraq. In all our previous history, where we have waged war, the end of the war came with a peace treaty between the warring parties. In this situation, with whom do we sign a peace treaty if we ever come to a successful resolution?

HILLARY
WWII ended with a treaty, but it really ended with a nuclear bomb. I hope that it will not take that type of devastation to end this turmoil, but if we don’t know with whom we’re negotiating, then how can we possibly have any resolution? In addition, how can we have resolution when it seems like our visions for the future are in direct opposition?

JACK
The nuclear bomb is a whole other discussion, but we can accurately say it was a major factor in that particular war. But almost every war has ended by a major victory by one side or the other, whether it was nuclear or infantry. The only time that I recall this was not the case was because of the expressed action of a single individual that brought a war to a close. And I am talking about one of my heroes, Dwight D Eisenhower, who when he campaigned for president said, "I will put an end to the war in Korea." He was elected in a landslide and he went to Korea and he really negotiated an end to the war.

HILLARY
It seems like Eisenhower was able to do that because he had one government with which to negotiate. How do we negotiate with factions within factions?

JACK
You are absolutely right, that’s why I said I would negotiate with all governments – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

HILLARY
But JACK, are you saying that these governments are truly responsible for the factions of insurgents fighting on the ground?

JACK
Certainly not, however, they are responsible for the vast population and can make decisions. There are always opposing forces, even in this country, whoever is able to bring peace is going to have a problem with radical forces to the left and to the right. The important thing is can the negotiating parties exercise control. I don’t claim that I have all the answers, but I think I do have a clear picture of the questions, and a clear picture of who and how they can be addressed. Once more, as you compare it to your own experiences, let me just say, I have had business dealings in Iraq and Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. The resolution in some places was to stop doing business with each other, which was totally satisfactory to me, and I assume to the other side. The important part, to paraphrase Lincoln, is that, with anger towards none, a peace conference should be declared. But, before that is declared we must have a cease-fire, so that everything remains in place until appropriate decisions are made. I can’t tell you with absolute assurance that this would work or could work; I can only say that we must do something to stop the blood. After 60 years in business, if a company that I controlled was suffering enormous losses, the first step was to stop the bleeding.

HILLARY
The question for us all is — how do we stop the bleeding?

HomeSite Map

Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.