From the New York Times:

“They start from completely different places,” said Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator who worked for Mr. Baker years ago and left the State Department early in the Bush administration. “Baker approaches everything with a negotiator’s mindset. That doesn’t mean every negotiation leads to a deal, but you engage your adversaries and use your leverage to change their behavior. This administration has never had a negotiator’s mind-set. It divides the world into friends and foes, and the foes are incorrigible and not redeemable. There has been more of an instinct toward regime change than to changing regime behavior.”

This quote and the Iraq Study Group Report taken as a whole highlight some very important facts regarding the administration's current foreign policy.

Refusing to negotiate with a nation simply because we are at odds with them or in order to leverage a concession out of them does not work. It only serves to isolate the country further, reducing the chance they they will eventually come around. This kind of black and white thinking does not lead to efficient policy outcomes. The dynamic produced by this faulty policy resembles that of a disfunctional relationship or a slip fault; tension builds and builds until it is let out in violent bursts. In almost all forms of policy, continuity is a good thing.

The Unites States can and must make concessions to other nations. There has been a subtle arrogance present in American foreign policy, and in fact, in the American psyche, that has brough out into the open during this administration. Politicians frequently, and with out the the appearance of thought, refer to our country as the greatest in the history of the world. The idea that there is a task that the Americans cannot finish or a foe we cannot defeat is considered blasphemous in most cirlces.

This country does have considerable military and economic power. However, our will to make sacrifice for the global good is rather limited. A report by Joseph Stiglitz, cited in the ISGR, predicted that the total cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion. If you work it out, this means each American will spend about 3% of their income on the Iraq war over an expected 5 years. However, given that the supposed benefits of this war would extend over a period more like 15-20 years, this number could equally be 1%. People spend 1% of their income on things like cable! Meanwhile, the human cost has been limited to a tiny fraction of the populace and their families.

At the same time, we are unwilling to make even miniscule concessions to certain nations we consider our enemies. It is thought that this would be a sign of weakness. Furthermore, if we are negotiating with our enemies, there is the danger that they could use "improper" techniques to leverage us, such as the acquision of nuclear technology. However, these things are on the table whether we are at the table or not. Closing our eyes does not make them go away.

Our foreign policy is hopelessly obsessed with very long term equilibrium variables such as strength and resolve. We are afraid to pull out Iraq for fear of it making us look weak or easily swayed; however, the damage has already been done. We already do look weaker. Being stubborn only proves that we are easily bogged down. Perhaps our purported strength was more valuable as a deterrent than as an actual physical tool.

Seeing Baker and Hamilton testify before the Senate was a blast of fresh air. We must see a return of the realists or else we are through.