Skip to main content

Fairy Dust

Why does "international community diplomacy" = Fairy Dust?

I believe it is because we've lost sight of the fact that Diplomacy *is* War.

We think it's not war, that it's something different and civilized. When we don't understand that diplomacy isn't making *nice* but that it's a projection of force rather than persuasion... it's no surprise that it is so ineffective.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Diplomacy is where you try to plant a dagger in the other guy's back without anyone knowing about it, including your left hand.

War is about declaring formal dueling rituals/traditions, and getting it all out in the open for everyone to witness.
1:34 AM
Ymarsakar said…
So in this war of ours, we have combined subterfuge/diplomacy/deception/assassination with war.
1:34 AM
Ymarsakar said…
I made this analogy before at Neo's page, where I wrote that there are two main kinds of diplomacy as practiced by diplomats and warriors. Specifically, you can negotiate as you would negotiate in an Arab bazaar over the price of your purchase. Essentially you will haggle until you believe you have a good price and the other side believes that they have a good price. This model of diplomacy is believed in by the UN and other fakers and incompetent idiots, as the primary tool by which differences are resolved without violence.

The other school of diplomacy faces negotiation as another kind of warfare, essentially meaning that one person wins and the other person loses. In such a framework, the rules are different than for haggling.
5:33 PM
Synova said…
When one is haggling the buyer and the seller both want the same thing... before they start.

The seller wants to sell.

The buyer wants to buy.

The problem with international diplomacy isn't getting people to do what they want to do, it's getting people to NOT do what they want to do.
11:30 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Suzanne Brockman lost me.

I just finished reading the latest paperback from Suzanne Brockmann. _Dark of Night_. I'm disappointed and that's a sad thing because I've absolutely loved her series of romances about SEAL team 16 and the Troubleshooters. Aparently I'm not alone. My complaint isn't the same as most of the others... I'm great with Sophia and Dave. I even am okay with Tracey being people smart. She and Decker did seem to come out of left field. I thought Decker was great even if I thought his overwhelming conflict was pretty lame. What I didn't care for was the politics. I read for escapism, for studly dangerous men acting like men, for sex, and adventure with guns, where our military are the good guys and the SEALs are supermen and military contractor's are heroes, too. (I wonder if Ms. Brockmann realizes that the Troubleshooters ARE Blackwater?) I do not read sexy action adventure to be presented with a *cause*. It's small things but they don...
14 comments
Read more

The Intersectionalist High Church

           It seems to me that the "conversation" about Black Lives that is focused on intersectionality is focused on doctrine to the exclusion of life itself; the exclusion of physical, actionable life itself. Rather than focus on how people live or even what they think and feel, the focus is on confession, language, and conversion to a doctrine.            Someone asked if what was going on was a religion.            Not only is it a religion but it can't even really be discussed without using religious  terms.            There's a Church, now, more concerned with exclusivity than with reform. More concerned with an Inquisition than with reform. It's not that some people are going to do it all wrong, are going to address Black Lives wrong, but that anyone outside of the Fellowship can not be ALLOWED to address problems which nearly everyone, to a person...
7 comments
Read more