The Foreign Service Journal, March 2012

8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A R C H 2 0 1 2 Give Peace a Chance At the end of a year that saw rapidly escalating concern over Iran, and in particular the prospect that Tehran may develop a nuclear weapon, two re- tired ambassadors issued salutary ap- peals to policymakers and the public to reject the drumbeat for military action in favor of diplomacy. In November, retired ambassadors WilliamH. Luers and Thomas R. Pick- ering spoke out about a House of Rep- resentatives bill that would outlaw any American contact with an Iranian offi- cial. “Besides raising serious constitu- tional issues over the separation of powers, this preposterous law would make it illegal for the U.S. to know its enemy,” they argued. “Successive U.S. administrations have put off learning about Iran and having direct contacts with its officials for more than 30 years. The Iranian leadership has been complicit in this dangerous game of avoiding contact” ( www.thedailybeast.com) . The veteran diplomats returned to the fray with a Dec. 30 Washington Post op-ed, “Military Action Isn’t the Only Solution to Iran” ( www.wash ingtonpost.com ). A fter noting that “The American people hear from gov- ernment officials and presidential can- didates nearly every day about military action against Iran,” Luers and Picker- ing ask: “Have we forgotten what Iraq and the United States have been through since 2002? Were it not for that ill-begotten war, thousands of Americans (and Iraqis) might still be living. America would be a trillion dol- lars richer and still be the proud, re- spected and economically healthy nation the world had known.” They continue: “Military action is becoming the seemingly fail-safe solu- tion for the United States to deal with real and imagined security problems. The uncertain and intellectually de- manding ways of diplomacy are seen as ‘unmanly’ and tedious — likely to in- volve compromise or even ‘appease- ment.’” Yet “history teaches that engagement and diplomacy pay divi- dends that military threats do not. De- ployment of military force can bring the immediate illusion of ‘success,’ but always results in unforeseen conse- quences and collateral damage that complicate further the achievement of America’s main objectives.” Pickering and Luers conclude with this recommendation: “Multiple, cre- ative efforts to engage Iran’s leaders and provide a dignified exit from the corner in which the world community has placed them could achieve more durable solutions at a far lower cost. It is a lesson that those urging military ac- tion against Iran have failed to learn.” But fortunately, it is not too late to try diplomacy. William Luers served as U.S. am- bassador to Czechoslovakia from 1983 to 1986 and was president of the United Nations Association from 1999 to 2009. Thomas Pickering, under sec- retary of State for political affairs dur- ing the first Clinton administration, also served as U.S. ambassador to Jor- dan, Nigeria, India, El Salvador, the United Nations and the Russian Fed- eration. The two men are members of the C YBERNOTES W alter Pincus’ excellent piece on the president’s daily national security session [“Daily Intelligence Briefings Yield Clues to a President’s Approach on Foreign Policy,” The Fed Page , Jan. 17] pointed out that “there is no one in each morning’s 30-to-45-minute session who has spent a career living and breathing foreign affairs.” This absence introduces an obvious weakness in the policy process. In the State Department, traditionally the lead formulator of foreign policy, the Foreign Service is loaded with senior officers who have spent their careers “living and breathing foreign affairs.” Why not designate, say, State’s under secretary for political affairs (normally a Foreign Service officer) to attend the president’s daily sessions? — Letter from retired FSO George McFarland, in the Jan. 22 Washington Post ( www.washingtonpost.com ).