Gotcha!

One reason I don't like direct talks with the leaders of enemy states is that I fear our talkers will forget that talking is a means and not an objective. Once we start talking to enemies, our talkers begin to believe that getting an agreement--any agreement--to keep the talking going is our objective. Our enemy, being thugs, never forgets they have an objective that they'll happily get talking or shooting. If I could trust our talkers not to forget why they are talking and if I could believe they'll end the talking if it strays from our objectives, I'd be less dismissive of talking to enemies under circumstances short of arranging their surrender to us.

But there is another reason I don't like talking to enemy leaders in public forums. Once we talk to them, we have a film record of the meeting and possible hand shake. So if at some time in the future we find we must set aside all talk and do some serious warmaking on our enemy, the Leftists are out in force slamming us for "creating" the enemy, so how can we possibly justify war? Or they'll say we're hypocrites for dealing with them in the past and now we want to get rid of them now that they are of no use to us. If he is so evil, why did we talk to him back then and extend agricultural credits or whatever? Good Lord, we can't shoot at our summit "partner" of all people!

So no presidential photo ops with Ahmadinejad, Kim, or Chavez, eh?