A U.S. army lieutenant in the Kunar Province of eastern Afghanistan.John Moore / Getty Images
From Newsweek:
One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.
Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.
Read more ....
My Comment: The U.S. has always talked with their enemies .... even under President Bush #2. The problem has always been that each country works according to what is their self interest .... the U.S. may have a global view towards cooperation .... but other countries have a different agenda. These differences are being manifested everyday in international forums like the U.N. and Georgia .... to think that other countries will change their policies because we want to talk to them .... ahhh ... the answer is no.