HOW ARE LEADERS LEGITIMIZED?

When one says that a meeting with and anti-American leader "legitimizes" that leader, a few errors are made. First, this line of thought gives undo weight to American power. Even at the heights of America's hegemony during the Cold War and subsequent unipolar moment, America has never been able to unilaterally and non-militarily legitimize a leader. Further, Iran and the US's attempted installation of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Vietnam and the US's tapping Ngo Dinh Diem, and recently Iraq and the US's miscalculated trust in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi stand as failed military examples. It is no great secret that other countries already recognize Mahmoud Amadinejad as a major leader of Iran. (Though, all too often it is forgotten that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wields the actual influence.)

True, a leader of a country is established externally, but just as much if not more, leaders are established internally. Amadinejad was after all elected democratically (even though now he is widely unpopular - though with 82% disapproval ratings, so is President Bush). These leaders are already legitimate.

IT'S ONLY A MEETING

In addition, the claim that anti-American leaders will use these opportunities as photo-ops and spin them in their favor, is too vague and hardly reason not to meet. When leaders meet, the pictures are all the same: both men shake hands or maybe if there are too many volatile issues they at least stand side by side. What could possibly happen, the two leaders become professional wrestlers and go at each other with foldable chairs?

It is not unheard of for a President to go to a country that does not view him favorably. For example, people from countries like France and even South Korea vocally protest against President Bush when he sets foot on their soil. Yet the leaders of these countries meet anyway. And little harm is done.

At the end of the day, all we are talking about is a meeting. In meetings, the interested parties discuss what they want, what they expect from the other, and then either in the meeting or after, decisions are made. Meetings are where rewards and concessions are made. All of these criticisms about an anti-American country needing to make concessions before meeting seem misplaced. What then is the point of a meeting if the significant business has already been done?

We are currently suffering from the error of not exhausting all diplomatic means before going to war. Is a simple meeting too much to ask? At the very least, the President will have an accurate, first-hand account of where a country stands. And if a President truly is doing what is right for America and the world, then he or she should feel confident in reasoning away any anti-American sentiments.

What exactly do you mean by "conditions"?

Sure the word "unconditionally" isn't defined well, but I think the question is a pretty understandable. By that I mean, we're not going to have our leaders meeting with enemies in war zones... if you wouldn't want to meet with them under certain conditions, I'm sure they won't either. Be reasonable.

I think the "unconditionally" has to do more with the leaders beliefs about the U.S. and how they may hate the U.S. and so on.

Just because a leader hates the U.S. doesn't mean they will kill our leader... if that were to happen their entire nation would be whipped clean, and I'm sure they are aware of this.

Also, quoting the washington post does little good. I mean, I got some from the quote, but news sources are inherently biased.

"Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?"

That whole statement is incorrect. We did talk to the axis, often, one simple example is the swapping treaties. Also, Stalin, though he was our "war time" ally, wasn't someone we supported, in fact we hated Stalin's guts, but how else would we have won the war against the NAZI's and Japan without Russia's help? Remember, it wasn't the the original Allies who won the war, a majority of it was Russia (which was neutral until germany turned on their pact and decided to invade). Russia also invaded Manchuria, because Japan invaded Manchuria earlier in the war on their way to conquer China... Who was in Manchuria before Japan invaded? Russia, mostly. Russia had their own reasons for beating up on Germany and Japan, it wasn't because we were best friends. So stating that we didn't meet with the enemy is false, if we wouldn't have met with Stalin, we would have failed in defeating both Germany and Japan in the time frame that we did.

To further that point, Stalin helped Germany violate the Treaty of Versailles by allowing Germany to train soldiers in the Soviet Union. Why would we not consider them an enemy??? Because they helped us by fixing their own problem?

Anyhow, like I said, unconditionally shouldn't be taken out of context and I believe that if it's safe to do so, we should meet with anyone we can to promote peace and familiarity with the U.S.