Comments on: Did White House coordinate timing of missile decision with Kremlin? http://www.bloggernews.net/122478 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:21:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: hiseas1 http://www.bloggernews.net/122478#comment-1416313 hiseas1 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:51:28 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/122478#comment-1416313 The idea that the U.S. administration agreed to a specific date suggested by the Russians is certainly plausible, and for the reasons given in the article. After all, the decision to cancel the deployment had already been taken. Using the timing of the announcement as one side of a contract (an agreement, after all)would not be out of the question, if the contract is a good one. But, a good contract must be beneficial to both parties, and honorable. Otherwise, it's a fraud. Lacking reliable information at this point, we are left with speculation. On September 17, I heard a former administration official's reaction to the effect that the timing of the missile deployment announcement should be seen as just an unfortunate detail and not as part of a larger failure of public diplomacy. I do not agree. The snub of September 17 came all too soon after the snub of September 1. Surely, the European furor over the earlier incident was noticed in Washington. Taken together, the two incidents suggest these alternatives: 1. The U.S. administration has made a conscious decision to discount the importance of Eastern Europe. 2. The governmental organizations responsible for U.S. foreign affairs are ignorant of history, or incompetent, or both. My guess is it's the latter. Unfortunately, that could produce an unconscious, i.e., de facto, decision for the former alternative, too. Until the administration produces a factual explanation for the choice of the date, the rest of us have no basis for a judgment. I thank you and Dr. Brown for your efforts to determine the facts. The idea that the U.S. administration agreed to a specific date suggested by the Russians is certainly plausible, and for the reasons given in the article. After all, the decision to cancel the deployment had already been taken. Using the timing of the announcement as one side of a contract (an agreement, after all)would not be out of the question, if the contract is a good one. But, a good contract must be beneficial to both parties, and honorable. Otherwise, it’s a fraud. Lacking reliable information at this point, we are left with speculation.

On September 17, I heard a former administration official’s reaction to the effect that the timing of the missile deployment announcement should be seen as just an unfortunate detail and not as part of a larger failure of public diplomacy. I do not agree. The snub of September 17 came all too soon after the snub of September 1. Surely, the European furor over the earlier incident was noticed in Washington. Taken together, the two incidents suggest these alternatives:

1. The U.S. administration has made a conscious decision to discount the importance of Eastern Europe.
2. The governmental organizations responsible for U.S. foreign affairs are ignorant of history, or incompetent, or both.

My guess is it’s the latter. Unfortunately, that could produce an unconscious, i.e., de facto, decision for the former alternative, too.

Until the administration produces a factual explanation for the choice of the date, the rest of us have no basis for a judgment. I thank you and Dr. Brown for your efforts to determine the facts.

]]>