July 12, 2007

That's Wishful Thinking In Itself

The Washington Post editorial board scolds leading anti-war Democrats for their wishful thinking on the consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq. The essay informs them that just wishing that Iraq isn’t the central front of the war on terror doesn’t make it so, and that the rush to pull out now when Congress had agreed to wait for September seems inexplicable. It would be inexplicable indeed — if the problem was just wishful thinking.

At Heading Right, I argue that the consequences of withdrawal now will lead to a regional conflict, one in which almost every nation in Southwest Asia would be tempted to participate. At the very least, a retreat leaves significant portions of Iraq in the hands of al-Qaeda, giving them another free and clear base of operations against the West. We would only have to return after the next massive attack, and it would be much more costly to re-invade Iraq.

The Post's notion that anti-war activists indulge in wishful thinking about the benefits of withdrawal to Iraq is itself a case of wishful thinking. This is all about political expediency -- and don't expect the Democrats to actually prevail in these efforts. Their proposals are not meant to succeed, but to shift responsibility for the failure to withdraw onto Republicans.

If the Democrats wanted a withdrawal, they would simply cut off the funding for the deployment. No one disputes that they have that power -- but the Democrats don't want to take responsibility for what comes afterwards. It's not wishful thinking but political expediency that drives their efforts this summer.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/10499

Comments (36)

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 12, 2007 9:06 AM

If the Democrats wanted a withdrawal, they would simply cut off the funding for the deployment.

Cap'n, what Democrats (most anyway) want is a phased withdrawal, leaving troops in the country to battle AQ and help out in other ways (like training). But they want the bulk to be removed from policing the civil war in Bahgdad and other areas of the country.

You're not going to get that by cutting off funds. You're not going to be able to leave Iraq responsibly by cutting off funding.

If they could force Bush into a phased withdrawal, they would. They've tried, but they really don't have that power.

Posted by swabjockey05 | July 12, 2007 9:28 AM

Which proves the Captain's point....yawn.

Cowards....all of them...and you can throw most of the Repubs into that group as well.

Posted by Oyster | July 12, 2007 9:52 AM

Pretty much everyone wants a phased withdrawal. The argument is - when is that the responsible thing to do. There is a growing faction of those who everytime they get news of successes the cries of "redeploy now" get louder. And this is consistently done without noting those successes, but rather emphasizing any bad news.

Posted by brentano | July 12, 2007 10:04 AM

Democrat party, too gutless to stop the war, too gutless to fight it.

No more jello for me!

Out with the democrat party!

Posted by Mike M. | July 12, 2007 10:06 AM

The phased withdrawal stuff, the notion that even fewer troops in Iraq will somehow do a better job of "battling Al Qaeda" and training Iraqis is nothing but a bunch of laughable rubbish that nobody seriously believes. It's the John Kerry philosophy of taking both sides of the issue: of being both for the war and against it.

No, I think that most of the Democrats in Congress (not the far left America hating loonies) really do understand the consequences of a withdrawal. But politically, this issue is too good of a club to beat on Republicans for them to resist. The strategy was outlined almost four years ago in the famed Jay Rockefeller memo to his colleagues.

The strategy is deeply cynical, and hurtful to the morale of the country. But politics ain't beanbag, and these guys will do almost anything to regain full power in '08.

Posted by unclesmrgol | July 12, 2007 10:10 AM

What we are seeing here is exactly what Lincoln faced in his second term during the Civil War. Nash's 1864 cartoon "Dedicated to the Chicago Convention (aka "In Memory of the Union Heroes who fell in a Useless War") points out how little history has changed over the years.

The "Chicago Convention" in the caption was the 1864 Democratic Convention. The Copperheads are alive and well, and now some of them are Republicans too.

BTW, the people to the back of the cartoon are a (now re-enslaved) black Union soldier and his family, who could just as well be a regular Iraqi family today. The pundits back then said that blacks loved their southern masters and were better off as slaves, and the pundits today say that regular Iraqis love their terrorists and are better off facing them on their own.

Posted by quickjustice | July 12, 2007 10:10 AM

Even if we grant that missteps have occurred in Iraq, or even that the initial invasion was a mistake, the Democrats are making an inane argument. The consequences of hasty withdrawal now aren't a return to a stable, pre-invasion status quo. We don't get a "do-over".

Mistaken or not, our invasion destabilized the region by deposing Saddam Hussein. Restoring regional stability consistent with American interests must be our top regional priority. Withdrawing our troops without a larger strategic plan to maintain regional stability cannot accomplish that goal. Yet that's what the Democrats advocate.

Modern Iraq was created by agreement of the British and French after World War I to ensure a stable oil supply for the British fleet. If we have to redraw modern Iraq's boundaries to put the north under Turkish jurisdiction, with local autonomy guaranteed to the Kurds, the east under Iranian jurisdiction, and the west and south, including the oil fields, under Kuwaiti (or another friendly Sunni state) jurisdiction, we should do that. If the Iraqi government can't operate effectively, we'll have no other choice.

The new borders should be defensible, and the American military committed to support those new boundaries. And the Iranian extremists must be defeated or contained by all necessary means.

Posted by Mike | July 12, 2007 10:16 AM

I can only hope, Cap'n Ed, that you're correct and the Democrats can't prevail in their headlong rush to American defeat. But the absolute conviction of our enemies that the battle will be won in American, not on the battlefield does give one pause. That, and the unquestioning willingness of the Democrats and the media to serve as virtual propaganda organs for terrorists is also unsettling.

On the other hand, should the Dems gain control of both houses and the White House, it would seem more than likely that retreat and defeat will not only be possible, but will be celebrated by the Dems and the press in the same manner as victory was celebrated in 1945.

Posted by Continuum | July 12, 2007 10:19 AM

The Dems are not going to vote to cancel funding for the war.

With the implicit cooperation of the Repubs, the Dems will make "efforts" to cancel the funding, speak long and hard against the insanity, and let Bush drag out the war until the 2008 elections.

The Dems will hang this albatros around Bush's and the Republican's collective necks until the 2008 elections.

It will remain a Republican war.

A Republican disaster of neocon making; created out of their own fantasy, ignorance, and incompetence.

This Republican failure will ensure veto proof Dem majorities in both Houses for generations to come.

GWB, the Dems' best friend. A gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by docjim505 | July 12, 2007 10:20 AM

Cap'n Ed wrote:

At the very least, a retreat leaves significant portions of Iraq in the hands of al-Qaeda, giving them another free and clear base of operations against the West. We would only have to return after the next massive attack, and it would be much more costly to re-invade Iraq.

Anybody remember some of the Copperheads bitching that the Taliban was OUR fault because "we" left a vacuum in the country after the Soviets pulled out which was filled by islamofascists? Now they want to deliberately make the same mistake with Iraq.

As for "phased withdrawal" to a support role, I think that's been the idea all along. Nobody has suggested that we leave a huge army in Iraq forever (as we did Germany after World War II; 62 years and counting in that "quagmire"). But the determination about how much of the load the Iraqis are ready to take over should be made rationally, based on evidence on the ground and in conjuction with the Iraqis themselves, NOT by a bunch of Benedict Arnolds who WANT a US defeat for their own partisan purposes.

And I've got to echo those like Cap'n Ed, swabjockey and brentano who see the dems for what they are: too gutless to stop the war that they claim is lost, unwinnable, a lie, killing our men, making us less safe, etc, etc, etc. Here's a tip: if somebody is doing something that is killing them, you don't tell them, "Come up with a timetable and benchmarks to stop doing it"; you make them stop immediately.

Posted by Postagoras | July 12, 2007 10:20 AM

I find it sad that the discussion about Iraq has devolved to arguments about which way forward will be the least bad.

The real problem is that there's diminishing confidence on the part of the American people that this administration can win in Iraq. At this point, it's not clear what a achievable win would be. President Bush often says that he listens to the Generals, but that is not the problem- the military has done everything asked of them with valor- the missteps and mistakes which led us to this point are the fault of the Bush Administration, not the military. That's what is sapping support for the war. Folks just don't believe that President Bush can get us out of the mess that he made.

Posted by J. Ewing | July 12, 2007 10:36 AM

I guarantee you that al Qaeda and its minions do not understand nor care about the subtle political distinctions. All they know is that if a US Senator talks about withdrawal, all they have to do is plant one more bomb or kill one more US soldier, or a dozen Iraqi children, and their victory will be assured, They entered this conflict believing we were paper tigers. Every time one of these idiot, lily-livered Senators opens his/her mouth, they re-confirm that perception and give aid and comfort to our enemy.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 12, 2007 10:39 AM

The absolutely worthless Democrat Party, who have been aiding and abetting the terrorists since 2003, will give a 150% effort to hand a victory to the terrorists, for pure, partisan gain.

After stabbing the US Military in the back once again, the Judas Party can hold a Defeat Parade - it can cut and run down Constitution Ave. Traitor John Kerry can throw out the first medals.

Got to hand it to Democrats - a plan has come together. Too bad Democrat traitor scum can only sabatoge the defense of this country, they are far too corrupt and incompetent to do anything positive for this country.

What will the Democrats decide to sabatoge next? My bet is the economy. The trust fund millionaires, trophy wives and thieves who make up what passes for the "elite" in the Democrat Party, can take the hit on their boffo portfolios, but the rest of us probably can't.

Congratulations Democrats. You will likely soon celebrate a hard earned victory. Why don't you invite some of your Taliban/Al Qaeda brethren over to whoop it up with you? It would be great to get you all together into one venue, for hugs and kisses (I can think of a Talking Heads song that would be appropriate to play at the party).

Posted by Continuum | July 12, 2007 10:42 AM

Too bad GWB can't run a 3rd time for President.

He would then destroy the neocon Repub party for generations to come.

Posted by Lightwave | July 12, 2007 10:43 AM

Especially in light of the White House's report that Iraq is indeed making major progress, withdrawing *any* troops right now is nothing more than political expediency.

It's been political expediency since day one, we either win this war or we'll have to fight a much worse regional war down the road. That has always been the case with Iraq.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 12, 2007 10:49 AM

"He would then destroy the neocon Repub party for generations to come."

Yes, what this country really needs is one party, Democrat rule.

Because they are so very effective.

The Party is just overrun with geniuses.

Are there three more competent, intelligent, capable and accomplished inividuals on this earth than Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards?

I mean, Hillary Clinton's signature achievement, health care reform, was the perfect plan.

Barak Obama - uh, seems like a nice clean guy. Looks good on TV.

John Edwards bilked insurance companies out of millions.

Giants. Titans.

How about the Democrat Congress? Look at all the capable people there. There's, well, let's see . . . and, well . . . and, uh . . .

Well, I'm sure they'll come up with something. After all, they're going to run this country as well as they run our inner cities. I mean as well as they run our public schools.

Or as well as they run tea parties in their posh Georgetown Homes. That's what we're in for. A tea party.

Now rest easy, Democrats are here to save us all.

Posted by docjim505 | July 12, 2007 10:50 AM

Postagoras wrote (July 12, 2007 10:20 AM):

President Bush often says that he listens to the Generals, but that is not the problem- the military has done everything asked of them with valor- the missteps and mistakes which led us to this point are the fault of the Bush Administration, not the military. That's what is sapping support for the war. Folks just don't believe that President Bush can get us out of the mess that he made.

Thanks in no small part to the dems and their MSM mouthpieces who have made damned sure that we have had overwhelming evidence that Iraq is nothing but a catastrophe. Goebbels, Lord Hawhaw and Tokyo Rose combined couldn't have done it better.

Please provide a list of the things that Bush has done to make Iraq "a mess". Then provide a list of the wars fought by the United States in which there were NEVER any mistakes made. Oh, and if you want to include "disbanding the Iraqi army" as one of the mistakes (liberals like this one, for some reason), please explain why Grant was wrong to disband the Army of Northern Virginia in 1865 and why Ike was wrong to disband the Werhmacht in 1945.

Posted by jr565 | July 12, 2007 10:52 AM

continuum wrote:
This Republican failure will ensure veto proof Dem majorities in both Houses for generations to come.

GWB, the Dems' best friend. A gift that keeps on giving.

And thats what its all about isn't it? Thanks for being so blunt continuum. This isn't about american security to the dems, this is about veto proof Dem majorities.

Which is why this isn't considered an american failure but a conservative failure, despite the fact that most democrats also voted for this, and when Clinton was in office nearly all democrats actually considered Iraq a threate and went so far as to pass the Iraqi liberation act which called for a regime change in Iraq as well as a transition to democracy, the very things that they are now zinging Bush for achieving.

Of course continuum, if you and the dems are able to end the war, the failure will be on the dems. The consequences of a withdrawal will be on the dems. If because of withdrawal the region gets even worse and Al Qaeda increases even more, and Iran gets even more powerful, aren't the dems then going to be responsible for putting us in that situation?

I think you're giving the dems WAAY too much credit. The congress has an approval rating in the teens, even lower than Bush. they've done nothing substantive, and if they actually have to lead are then responsible for results. Can't say that Bush is hyping the Al Qaeda threat when they are in charge of dealing with Al Qaeda. Which is why this is so stupid. They have to realize that if we pull out and Iraq collapses that long term this will be bad for our security interests and will have unforseen as well as forseen consequences.
IT's a short term gain to undermine our efforts in Iraq to get into office, but the story doens't end if and when we withdraw. If we withdraw and it gets far worse than a low level civil war and Iraq is a safe haven for Iraq, and Iraq is even more powerful and continues to defy the world they would have laid the bed they would have to sleep in. ANd it would be that much harder to lead if the consquences are worse, and people will demand results which will be much harder because they've made a bad situation worse. It's so short sighted its stupid.

But then again, that's the democrats.

Posted by TW | July 12, 2007 10:52 AM

EM "At the very least, a retreat leaves significant portions of Iraq in the hands of al-Qaeda, giving them another free and clear base of operations against the West."

The ignorant vacuity of this opinion is the real problem.

"(CIA Director) Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102451_3.html?hpid=topnews

Fox News keeps running that same video of a bunch of guys in the desert running through an obstacle course while holding rifles. As if they could show up dressed like that at a ticket counter and ask for airfare to the US at any time. Probably can't speak English either, so you really expect they would get this far?

Recent events in Britain show that Al Queda has already morphed into something far more sinister and does not require any sort of 'base'. Using such an argument to defend the failed Bush administration reveals, once again, that Ed is far more obsessed wtih partisan politics than workable policy.


Posted by Continuum | July 12, 2007 10:55 AM

Hey, "No Donkey", methinks the lady doth protest too much. . . . . ( Will, I apologize, for the paraphrasing.)


I still think that GWB is the best President that the Dems ever had. ( Maybe we can hurry up and amend the Constitution to let him run again.)

Posted by Mike M. | July 12, 2007 11:01 AM

Indeed. And if Hillary Clinton and her fake husband should actually manage to finagle their way into the Oval Office yet again, I predict it'll take just two years for them to get the Republicans back in full control of Congress, just like the last time around.

Posted by Continuum | July 12, 2007 11:04 AM

Hey, jr565,

Bush and his incompetence broke it.

He bought it.

Let him fix it.

By letting Bush have his way on funding, the Dems are giving GWB enough rope to hang himself and all of his neocon buddies.

All I have to say, is "Bush for Prez in 2008".

Posted by NoDonkey | July 12, 2007 11:06 AM

Continuum,

Get thee to a nunnery.

"I still think that GWB is the best President that the Dems ever had."

I agree. None of the Democrat Presidents (excepting maybe Truman), were as good as Bush.

So once your beloved Democrats get the Republicans out of the way, what's their "plan" to defend the nation? I mean, really? Or is it even necessary?

To sleep, perchance to dream . . .

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 12, 2007 11:06 AM

They have to realize that if we pull out and Iraq collapses that long term this will be bad for our security interests and will have unforseen as well as forseen consequences.

Where was this long-term thinking before the invasion?

The Dems could easily sit back and not challange Bush on Iraq. He made this bed.

It's no surprise that you all are painting the dems as cowardly conivers bent on political manipulation. But the reality is there are many Dems who honestly think Iraq will not get better no matter how long we keep our military there. That we need to draw down troops so Iraqis have to stand up and own their country, while we keep some troops their to aid in the fight against AQ and train.

Politically speaking, they could do nothing have a more than decent shot of winning the white house in 2008. But challanging Bush and trying to get him to withdraw troops is a risky proposition, considering Iraq will most likely become more bloody after we drawn down troops. That could hurt them in 2008.

But the reality is, they don't have the power to force a phased withdrawal. They can cut off funding, but that's not a realistic option. Noone is going to deny funds to troops in harms way. It's just not going to happen.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 12, 2007 11:14 AM

"But the reality is there are many Dems who honestly think . . ."

Sorry Tom, but under no circumstances can I accept the words "Dems", honestly" and "think" in one sentence.

Oil, meet water and oh yeah, here's some additional water. Now mix.

Posted by Continuum | July 12, 2007 11:15 AM

Hey, NoDonkey, I don't understand.

Don't you want GWB to be "President for Life"?

Besides, Bush still has to invade Iran, and I'm not sure he could get Iran really "neoconned-up" in just the remaining 18 months. (Well . . . , maybe he could, but still . . . )

GWB, the Dems' Best Talking Point.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 12, 2007 11:26 AM

Continuum,

"Don't you want GWB to be "President for Life"?"

I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. He needs to relax after he turns over the White House to one of the Republicans in 2009.

“Bush still has to invade Iran”

Let’s hope. I like that 3rd Aircraft Carrier group over there. I’d like to see the looks on the Mullahs faces when our destroyers bitch slap those cheap Sunburn missiles down. Does just everything made in China suck or what?

“GWB, the Dems' Best Talking Point.”

Agree. The conversation really goes straight downhill when Democrats talk about themselves, kinda Jerry Springer like. It's kind of sad, isn't it?


Posted by Continuum | July 12, 2007 11:29 AM

"No Donkey", I too wish for a Republican Prez in 2008.

No way in hell, do I want the neocons passing this POS over to the Dems.

They need to live with their failures.

(However, as Meatloaf sang, "Two out of three ain't bad.")

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 12, 2007 11:31 AM

Sorry Tom, but under no circumstances can I accept the words "Dems", honestly" and "think" in one sentence.

Whatever gets you through the night.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 12, 2007 11:34 AM

Continuum,

"No way in hell, do I want the neocons passing this POS over to the Dems.

They need to live with their failures."

Super! We all agree.

So when will the great Democrat exodus begin? I hear Tehran is all abuzz about their arrival.

We'll let Democrats find out for themselves that "cock tail hour" has a slightly different meaning in Persian culture.

I'm fairly sure Ted Kennedy will be disappointed, but who knows? Maybe it will turn out to be therapeutic for him.

Posted by Terry Gain | July 12, 2007 12:45 PM

But they want the bulk to be removed from policing the civil war in Bahgdad and other areas of the country.

Pure fantasy. This statement is nothing more than an excuse to leave, which fools no one who is paying attention to what is happening in Iraq. There is low level sectarian violence. There is no civil war.

Where is the civil war being conducted? Please refer us to some of the occasions when Americans have been caught in the middle of these warring factions. There aren't any.

American troops are being killed by insurgents and al Qaeda. They are not being attacked in any sigificant way by any group which has the support of the Iraqi people.

If you don't have the foresight to support finishing the job, press for immediate withdrawal, not this phased redeployment b.s.

Posted by Carol Herman | July 12, 2007 2:49 PM

From recent polling data; the congress critters are below Bush. Getting about a 14% approval rating.

The military, meanwhile, gets 70%.

And, John Kerry [jon cary, gigolo] hardly registered with the voters in 2004. So, I seem to think it's a pretty good guess that we're not in Vietnam. And, the crap the elites produced in the 1970's, while being tried, again, isn't selling.

The market place has changed.

What used to be considered the "wisdom of the hoi-poloi" now looks faded. And, laurel leaves don't really fade all that well. They tend to shrivel and crack.

Also, from the grasping at Immigration Bill, before he died; it shows ya that McPain didn't guess the public's mood, right.

And, I do remember listening to Drudge! Just before the first exit of Immigration Bill, he said, on his radio show, that the senators thought the "ruckus had died down." Not by a long shot.

One of the benefits of McVain, Ron Paul, Mike Gavel, Huckabee, Bumblebee, and Brownback, is that candidates who continue running ... behind in the pack ... without giving up ... need their own Special Olympics.

On the other hand? I'd bet half the town of DC is looking for ways to gain access to the "real nominee" ahead. Because their lifestyles depend upon it.

I also think there's life, ahead, for Donald Rumsfeld's STOVE PIPES. The things you stick into malfunctioning bureaucracys; to get things done. There's really no other way to fix what's broken.

And, as far as I'm concerned the WINNAH of the nomination contest doesn't have to send the best and the brightest home. He can work with those teams; as the presidency, while the focus goes to one man. Is still a TEAM'S JOB.

What the president has to do is take the KNIVES out of the hands of the idiots. Bush never did this. And, that's one of the reasons the "weak hand" is something you see once in awhile. But not forever, among generals. Leadership counts!

You thought it was George Soros' money?

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 12, 2007 4:23 PM

Continuum sez:

"I still think that GWB is the best President that the Dems ever had."

So you admit that the time period of 1993-2001 WAS a total failure, then? Thanks for playing!

Posted by exDemo | July 12, 2007 5:42 PM

Continuum,

I think that GWB is the best American President prosecuting a war since Truman.

Harry was denigrated then as everyon scoffed "to err is Truman". Now the Dems loons say Bushitler is a moron, while they applaud having voted for a gigalo and an Elmer Gantry Flunkout the last two times they could pul a lever.

Truman only had 18% approval fighting in Korea. . GWB is about double that.. But then Harry is now regarded as a Great President.

Even Harry had more approval than Dingey and San Fran Nan They have had almost five months ot earn their abysmal ratings.

How LOW can you go by next November ???

If the Jackasses had any leaders to nominate they would be unbeatable. But when you have only a one year rook; and a escaped ruthless felon who walked because her husband fired her prosecutors; stalled in appoinintg new ones, and she hid the subpoened evidence in the White House where no one could get it. And didn't find it until 8 days after the Statute of Limitations had run out. Just coincidental to the MSM.

The people can't stand her; and don't want to go through another 4 or 8 years of painfully waiting to wish they would just GO AWAY.

Posted by Russ | July 12, 2007 6:25 PM

Folks like Continuum and Tom have proven they care more about politics than national security. The saying that "politics stops at the water's edge" died a few months after 9/11.

It has historically taken 10-13 years to defeat an insurgency, but the dems have zero patience, once again proving that they have no stomach to see a war to a successful conclusion.

And before you start up the chickenhawk BS, I am an infantry officer who has been and will likely go back(possibly by December). I know these things take patience, but that is sadly lacking in the democrat party.

Dems have abandoned any moral authority they have by advocating withdrawal in spite of the "bloodbath" that even they now acknowledge would occur. Some are even calling for a new dictator, b/c obviously the Iraqi people deserve oppression more than they deserve a chance at freedom.

And those who say we would pull out and only focus on AQ, what the heck do you think AQ would then do? Were I the enemy, intermingling with the general population would be the FIRST thing I'd do. It'd force the Americans to either come in after us or abandon any fight against us.

When the next dem calls us to fight in their next action(Darfur anyone?), why should we in uniform believe they would allow us to continue to fight when it became unpopular?

Posted by jr565 | July 12, 2007 7:46 PM

Russ wrote:
When the next dem calls us to fight in their next action(Darfur anyone?), why should we in uniform believe they would allow us to continue to fight when it became unpopular?
Great point. not only have they telegraphed that they would abandon the mission if the going got tough to our soldiers, they would similarly provide tactics and strategy to defeat us to our enemies.
Ok lets see, for me to defeat America I just need to use carbombs. I need to blow some stuff up and target some soldiers. So long as I can create quagmire I win. Yay!
Similarly to the holding of regimes accountable. They've been arguing against war, but for peace. But that would require a peace through enforcement. i.e. war is Iran is out becuase war is evil and Bush is hitler. But ok, so then I'm assuming that the dems will suggest that they can reign in the threat through the UN. Doesn't that though require that they act tough, enforce resolutions? Doesn't it require at least the threat of force. Telling a country, you better not build nuclear bombs OR ELSE, requires some form of consequence to back up the words, else every negotiation will be one that our enemies win.

And Im sure they will simply respond. "Or else what? WHat are you going to do, attack us? And get invovled in a QUAGMIRE? Run the risk of suffering casualties? Suffer low poll numbers? Sorry but we'll do what we please because we know your words are hollow and you're a paper tiger"