<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Diplomacy&#8217;s Prospects: Looking Forward, Looking Back &#8211; Part II</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.guerrilladiplomacy.com/2010/02/diplomacys-prospects-looking-forward-looking-back-part-ii-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.guerrilladiplomacy.com/2010/02/diplomacys-prospects-looking-forward-looking-back-part-ii-2/</link>
	<description>Rethinking International Relations</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:44:46 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Edward Marks</title>
		<link>http://www.guerrilladiplomacy.com/2010/02/diplomacys-prospects-looking-forward-looking-back-part-ii-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3829</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward Marks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.guerrilladiplomacy.com/?p=964#comment-3829</guid>
		<description>You will continue to have problems with Sir John Malcolm&quot;s reported remark, “A political agent is never so likely to succeed as when he negotiates at the head of an army”, because it is fundamentally correct. District Officers and/or Political agents represented military/political power or they represented nothing.  They would not have achieved any success on the strength of their local knowledge if they had been independent agents.  

Perhaps you are confusing Raj-type political representatives with missionaries; although objective analysis would probably show they also depended upon the implicit support of their country&#039;s army.

By the way, the record of the PRTs in Iraq and Aghanistan is not really impressive.  Most reports confuse good intentions and the work of good people with meaningfull success.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You will continue to have problems with Sir John Malcolm&#8221;s reported remark, “A political agent is never so likely to succeed as when he negotiates at the head of an army”, because it is fundamentally correct. District Officers and/or Political agents represented military/political power or they represented nothing.  They would not have achieved any success on the strength of their local knowledge if they had been independent agents.  </p>
<p>Perhaps you are confusing Raj-type political representatives with missionaries; although objective analysis would probably show they also depended upon the implicit support of their country&#8217;s army.</p>
<p>By the way, the record of the PRTs in Iraq and Aghanistan is not really impressive.  Most reports confuse good intentions and the work of good people with meaningfull success.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

