http://disqus.com/people/a6fa946e78341e95095b315838dc260e/enSun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:37 -0000http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/personal_diplomacy/#comment-1921752"Diplomacy will always be personal, but the trick is not to let it get personal."<br><br>Nonsense. Diplomatic relationships are no more personal than any others. Indeed, for good diplomats, they are likely less personal than most. Diplomacy (in all its forms) is ultimately part of the pursuit of national interests. Personal relationships can be important in that pursuit insofar as they foster communication -- Churchill's eagerness to write Roosevelt is evidence that he (Churchill) recognized the possibility of influence, or at least of making his voice heard -- but they do not, and cannot change interests. At best, they offer windows into others' policies and opportunities to make voices heard that might otherwise go unheard. Personal matter only insofar as they allow communication between states and statesmen (this is not to be overlooked: it the very essence of diplomacy ...and, sadly, conveniently ignored by the Bush administration for so long). And, it should be said, not just between statesmen in power (as the Churchill experience suggests). Diplomats and politicians who forget this do so at their own peril.ArthurFri, 29 Aug 2008 20:25:20 -0000http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/there_was_no_incipient_coup_in_iraq/#comment-4556860And so the question that would make this article interesting and/or worth a read: who is consolidating power? Do you believe al Maliki is strong enough to have a tilt using the nascent apparatus of state? Have we another Pahlavi?ArthurSun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:37 -0000