I had quite a lengthy post prepared, but in the end, I figured things are getting long here. Needless to say, I think you presume an awful lot about me, and are dealing in stereotypes and facts which aren't actually facts. However, what I've been saying all along is best summed up here:
No, it isn't. Dictators live perfectly well in isolation. Cuba has shown this. Castro is no more overthrown after 50 years of "siege" than he was on the first day in Havana, despite massive deprivation. North Korea has shown this. Kim Il Sung is still immortal leader, and his spoilt brat of a son is still wearing those atrocious sunglasses and drinking cognac while his people starve in fear. Haiti has shown this. The Duvaliers and their Tonton Macoutes were perfectly happy butchering people in splendid isolation. Paraguay has shown this. Iraq has shown this. The USSR has shown this. Turkmenistan has shown this. The examples are almost limitless. Many dictators even isolate their own countries, at least from the free world, justifying it with "Juche" or "Self-Reliance" or "Socialism in one country" or Voodoo (literally!), or whatever else. When all other sources of power and support vanish, they know they will seem even more powerful by comparison. Often, they will buttress their general isolation by finding a sugar daddy amongst your less ethical competitors, like Russia, or China, something which should give even the most hardline idealist serious pause.
This tactic is not working. It has not worked historically. My bet is that it will never work. Pete hit the nail on the head. Change tactics, or enjoy the non-fruits of stalemate. Thankfully, things are changing, whether you like that or not.
-Jester
Afterthought: I suppose one could make an argument for Libya, but their progress in recent years stands in contrast to a still-abysmal human rights record. However, without at least the willingness by the US to deal with a well-known terrorist supporter, things in Libya would not be improving, but Ghaddafi would almost certainly still be in power, and they'd probably still be trying (and failing) to build a nuclear bomb. It is a case where the initiative came from the other side, though, and so it deserves mention as a rare case of a dictator pragmatically choosing a (slightly) different path. Of course, Ghaddafi also opposes Islamic Fundamentalism: are you willing to sacrifice what few allies you have in the Islamic world for principle? It's a tough issue.
Quote:Second, it sends a message to every Castro wannabe that the result of actively seeking to threaten the US with nuclear weapons will result in at least isolation. [...] Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.
No, it isn't. Dictators live perfectly well in isolation. Cuba has shown this. Castro is no more overthrown after 50 years of "siege" than he was on the first day in Havana, despite massive deprivation. North Korea has shown this. Kim Il Sung is still immortal leader, and his spoilt brat of a son is still wearing those atrocious sunglasses and drinking cognac while his people starve in fear. Haiti has shown this. The Duvaliers and their Tonton Macoutes were perfectly happy butchering people in splendid isolation. Paraguay has shown this. Iraq has shown this. The USSR has shown this. Turkmenistan has shown this. The examples are almost limitless. Many dictators even isolate their own countries, at least from the free world, justifying it with "Juche" or "Self-Reliance" or "Socialism in one country" or Voodoo (literally!), or whatever else. When all other sources of power and support vanish, they know they will seem even more powerful by comparison. Often, they will buttress their general isolation by finding a sugar daddy amongst your less ethical competitors, like Russia, or China, something which should give even the most hardline idealist serious pause.
This tactic is not working. It has not worked historically. My bet is that it will never work. Pete hit the nail on the head. Change tactics, or enjoy the non-fruits of stalemate. Thankfully, things are changing, whether you like that or not.
-Jester
Afterthought: I suppose one could make an argument for Libya, but their progress in recent years stands in contrast to a still-abysmal human rights record. However, without at least the willingness by the US to deal with a well-known terrorist supporter, things in Libya would not be improving, but Ghaddafi would almost certainly still be in power, and they'd probably still be trying (and failing) to build a nuclear bomb. It is a case where the initiative came from the other side, though, and so it deserves mention as a rare case of a dictator pragmatically choosing a (slightly) different path. Of course, Ghaddafi also opposes Islamic Fundamentalism: are you willing to sacrifice what few allies you have in the Islamic world for principle? It's a tough issue.