President Bush's statement last week before the Israeli Knesset warning of the dangers of appeasement highlighted the foreign policy naivete of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama...without even mentioning him.
Though Obama has already said that as president he would "sit down" and apparently have tea with the world's largest backer of terrorism (Iran, in case you missed it), he and his fellow Democrats were quick to protest that Obama was not, in fact, an appeaser...even though Obama was not named in the speech and the White House says Obama was not in the mind of President Bush when he made the speech.
But what is appeasement? Every administration has diplomats, don't they? Can you have diplomacy without appeasement? Jed Babbin believes so, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Is Obama an appeaser? Of course. But why? What is an appeaser? An appeaser may be a diplomat, but all diplomats are not appeasers.
Diplomats buy and sell; appeasers just give things away. And that difference is something Barack Obama has yet to learn.
An appeaser is someone who is willing to compromise his nation’s interests without obtaining an equal or greater concession from the adversary. History’s most famous appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, gave the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 and received nothing in return. Having been appeased -- and thus given time to further build his military might -- Hitler attacked a year later, conquering Poland and igniting the largest and most murderous war in history.
In Churchill’s more literary definition, an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
If I might risk adding to Babbin's excellent summation, appeasers engage in diplomacy simply for the sake of maintaining the illusion of peace. Good diplomacy, however, aims to preserve national interest and security...and walks away (Reykjavik) from the table when no reasonable and verifiable concessions can be obtained from the enemy.
16 comments:
Obama isn't an appeaser. Republicans are acting like he's going to be giving away Rhode Island or something.
Democrats have been appeasers going back at least as far as Jimmy Carter. They tend to hold the naive proposition that all people are basically good and that all men can be reasoned with; this is the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evil from which practically all liberals suffer.
This mentality leads many to the conclusion (as it did Chamberlain) that if you just meet the aggressors demands, he'll be "appeased" and you can have peace. Churchill's definition, however (as WWII proved) is the cold reality.
Obama's statements leave no reasonable conclusion other than that he is cut from the same cloth.
Obama's remarks hardly mean that he will "sit down and have tea" with these people and give them whatever they want--ridiculous. It's about time we have someone in the White House who will not shoot first, then talk. We're all tired of that. I believe that he intends to use all means of negotiation before embroiling this country in another Iraq. I think I speak for many when I say we don't want it and we can't afford it.
Anonymous says "he intends to use all means of negotiation before embroiling this country in another Iraq."
You mean "all means" like Neville Chamberlain used to keep Britain out of another WWI?
We can afford another Iraq much better than we can afford another 911, or a nuclear Iran.
Oh and Anonymous: we've never "shot first".
The Taliban in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was being given sanctuary and terrorists were being allowed to train, refused to turn over bin Laden and other terrorists, so we did what we had to do to remove this threat and attempt to bring the terrorists to justice.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein agreed to verified disarmament after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. He never lived up to his agreement, thumbing his nose at 17 UN resolutions, and even fired on US and British jets over 200 times in the year leading up to the invasion. We also negotiated intensely with Iraq for about 8 months prior to the invasion, without success. We then did what we had to do to remove THAT threat. Hussein was also supporting terrorism in Israel and other locations.
We talked...but we made it clear we weren't giving the farm away.
How did Babbin define an appeaser? An appeaser is someone who is willing to compromise his nation’s interests without obtaining an equal or greater concession from the adversary.
Without presenting a position of strength and resolve, that's what you're telling the enemy.
No, I don't think he'll give the farm away.
I suppose you are one of those people that believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Our attention was diverted from Afghanistan for one reason and one reason only--George Bush and his egomaniacal desire to oust Hussein. I believe I heard more about WMD's than I did about any negotiations. As far as Hussein supporting terrorism in Israel--I don't really give a damn. Let them fight some of their own fights. We can't fight the whole world's battles for them. When it's your child's life on the line to go off and fight in a purely unjustifued war, I wonder how you would feel?
If we don't do something other than shake our mighty fist at the rest of the world, there will be many more 9/11's--possibly deserved. Our current actions in the ME are giving the next generation plenty of reason to do it again.
The Iraq/911 connection is debatable. Mohammed Atta did meet with an Iraqi official in the months before 911; I'm sure they weren't just having tea. The 911 Commission also found ties (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/03/examining-iraq-al-qaeda-connection.html) though direct support could never be firmly established.
As for the 8 months of negotiations, go back and check the news sources starting about August 2002 going up to March 2003 when the invasion occurred and you'll find a lot of talking and negotiating going on...but not giving ground on our part (that's not negotiating; that's appeasing). And before that, 10 years of doing nothing as Saddam defied the cease fire agreement of 1991.
I'm not surprised that you "don't really give a damn" about terrorists blowing up innocent people in Israel; appeasers seldom do. But Israel is our ally and our friend, and we should stand by our friend. Especially when terrorism is essentially an Islamic-Everyone Else type conflict. Clinton tried appeasement in the Barak/Arafat talks, and it only got both us and the Israelis more blood spilled.
As for my children, they're too young now, but when the time comes, if they choose to defend their country, I'll worry for their safety, but I'll support them. I served 10 years in the military myself, so I know a little about the subject.
We don't need to shake our fist. But we do need to let the bad guys know unequivocally that we will NOT take any crap from them (as Clinton did for 8 years, teaching them we were weak). Otherwise, we may get more events that make 911 pale in comparison.
Actually, I care very much about terrorists blowing people up. But, while we're on the subject, do we have a count on how many innocent people have died at our hand in Iraq--must be more than 200,000 by now?
The fact that the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia tells me that we invaded the wrong country. One meeting with an Iraqi official justifies what we've done to that country. No way! Again, we got off the track in Afghanistan. Iraq was a non-issue until the cowboy and his cronies made it one.
Not an appeaser--thank you--just want to make sure that any military action that is taken in my name is justified.
Wow, Anonymous, perhaps we should invade ourselves! If we've slaughtered 200,000 innocent people, we must be pretty evil, almost as the Soviet Union.
Actually, I think you've been listening to the MoveOn.org types too much. We don't target innocent people; that's why we spend millions on smart-bombs that can perform surgical strikes on people trying to kill us and innocent civilians. You're confusing us with our enemy, which specifically tries to slaughter civilians.
There may well have been some justification for action against Saudi Arabia; you are correct in pointing out that most of the 911 terrorists are from there. However, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, they have been willing to work with us on some level.
See, we don't always invade every country. :-)
No, we don't target the innocent, but we've sure taken enough of them out. And it is evil. I'm not so proud of my country right now.
Yes, Saudi Arabia works with us--they give us oil. I think George was just there begging like a fool for more. I believe they denied his request.
Anyway, nice chatting with you!
Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html
Is Robert Gates an appeaser? Seems like he's saying about the same thing Obama is.
Gates may very well be, for all I know. We've been talking with Iran for far too long with absolutely zero results. There's little time left for action before they develop nukes.
"But Israel is our ally and our friend, and we should stand by our friend."
Really?? How many of our friends are standing by us in Iraq?
Anonymous, it's true many of our friends have deserted us in Iraq. But sometimes you have have to do the right thing even when no one else will.
Obama is worse than an appeaser...he may be a crypto-Communist. His association with William Ayres and Bernadette Dohrn, late of the Weather Underground and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) post-dates his revealed association with a member of the Communist Party-USA, a man named Frank Marshall Davis. Obama was apparently menored by Davis as a young man in Hawaii. God Help Us!
Obama is worse than an appeaser. we are considering electing a man who has consorted with domestic terrorists, whose past AND future pastors preach racial hatred and who both favor the Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah to Israel, and whose dubious associations include a real estate developer who has actively worked to continue the almost traditional coruption of Chicagoland politics! So Obama may not just be a potential appeaser, he may be a crypto-Communist!
Post a Comment