CHESTER A. CROCKER

What matters is not whether one talks to adversaries but what one says to them, which strategies of engagement are set in place, and how competently they are executed.

International negotiation has a nasty tendency to remind its practitioners that the laws of gravity affect them, too, and that international life is a two-way street in which one may have to give in order to get.

Business does not go where there is corruption and the rule of law does not apply.

States with shallow domestic legitimacy tend to fail when they lose foreign support.

Diplomacy, contrary to the current misconception, is not about making nice, exchanging happy talk, and offering concessions. It is the engine that converts raw energy and tangible power into meaningful political results. In other words, diplomacy is all about the intelligent use of power. Diplomacy is not an alternative to coercion and other forms of power; its effectiveness depends on their skillful use.

The concept of military readiness is well understood, but readiness for what happens after the fighting stops is just as important.

Successful diplomats must always be conscious of other parties' need to know how an agreement serves their interests and how it can be sold back home.

Now that Washington once again has a tangible adversary -- variously described as ‘freedom-hating terrorists,’ ‘Salafist jihadis,’ or ‘Islamofascists’ -- U.S. leaders have convinced the American public that foreign policy is an ‘us-versus-them’ contact sport in which the primary tactics are military and coercive

Successfully pressuring armed militants to abandon violence and participate in democratic elections requires a favorable political climate. In Northern Ireland and South Africa, armed militants turned away from violence and entered mainstream politics only when the framework of an acceptable political deal was on the table, providing them with a product they could sell to their supporters. The sequence of events was of crucial importance.

Statecraft, as these cases convincingly illustrate, is demanding and often exhausting work. There are risks, and success is not guaranteed. It requires major governmental and political resources and the same kind of hourly, year-round planning and execution as the conduct of a military campaign.

Business does not go where there is corruption and the rule of law does not apply.

States with shallow domestic legitimacy tend to fail when they lose foreign support.

The concept of military readiness is well understood, but readiness for what happens after the fighting stops is just as important.

The United States must learn to rebuild states after overturning their regimes.

Just as men cannot eat slogans, neither can statesmen solve problems with rhetorical cliches and abstract formulas.

State your goals at the outset and create realities as you proceed.

What matters is not whether one talks to adversaries but what one says to them, which strategies of engagement are set in place, and how competently they are executed.

Successful diplomats must always be conscious of other parties' need to know how an agreement serves their interests and how it can be sold back home.

Successfully pressuring armed militants to abandon violence and participate in democratic elections requires a favorable political climate. In Northern Ireland and South Africa, armed militants turned away from violence and entered mainstream politics only when the framework of an acceptable political deal was on the table, providing them with a product they could sell to their supporters. The sequence of events was of crucial importance.

The reasons for disliking diplomacy are legion. Engaging in serious diplomacy would mean reviewing the way Washington advocates for and deploys its principles. It might necessitate a glance in the mirror and asking why the United States believes it is uniquely empowered to interpret the Creator's higher purpose for people in other lands.

Negotiators run the risk of achieving agreement and then having to take yes for an answer when they are emotionally accustomed to confrontation.

International negotiation has a nasty tendency to remind its practitioners that the laws of gravity affect them, too, and that international life is a two-way street in which one may have to give in order to get.

Statecraft, as these cases convincingly illustrate, is demanding and often exhausting work. There are risks, and success is not guaranteed. It requires major governmental and political resources and the same kind of hourly, year-round planning and execution as the conduct of a military campaign.

Now that Washington once again has a tangible adversary -- variously described as ‘freedom-hating terrorists,’ ‘Salafist jihadis,’ or ‘Islamofascists’ -- U.S. leaders have convinced the American public that foreign policy is an ‘us-versus-them’ contact sport in which the primary tactics are military and coercive

Diplomacy, contrary to the current misconception, is not about making nice, exchanging happy talk, and offering concessions. It is the engine that converts raw energy and tangible power into meaningful political results. In other words, diplomacy is all about the intelligent use of power. Diplomacy is not an alternative to coercion and other forms of power; its effectiveness depends on their skillful use.