With regard to my earlier post, an astute reader notes that there’s a benefit to the U.S. not being knee-deep in Mideast peace deals. Fair point.

Of course the U.S. has to be intransigent re: negotiations. Our position for centuries has been such that those who aren’t our allies are effectively dehumanized and are represented as bereft of legitimate national interests. It’s what Manifest Destiny and everything forward was built on, really.

Part of the reason that the Iraq War propaganda worked—why it always works—is that Americans see the rest of the world as comprised of illiterate, avaricious halfwits, desperately yearning for us to save them. It’s a remix of the White Man’s Burden trope, and we’re seeing it as action is discussed in places like Sudan and Myanmar today. Grand plans for those places will be made, disasters will unfold, and the authors of those great plans will disown them like an NBA star does his bastard children.

If there is a bright side to peace talks coming to the Middle East without the U.S. as a broker, it is that the U.S. won’t be in a position to mess things up. Also, perhaps we will be able to divest ourselves from the unprofitable, thankless work of micromanaging that region. (I guess when it comes to Armageddon, I’m a glass half full kind of guy.) I see China and Russia taking a greater role in the region—not much good for American interests, but these are the logical (inexorable?) consequences of the Iraq bet not paying off.

I agree that we have no need to “appease” (or subsidize) where we have no stake. My objection was to the ongoing drumbeat that diplomacy is akin to surrender. The rest of the world knows better—and isn’t hesitating to show us.