On Appeasement

We are all familiar with President Bush's uncanny ability to torment the English language one gaffe at a time. He rarely recognizes the differences between past, present and future tenses, and seems generally indifferent to proper use of plurals in a sentence. In addition, I don't believe I have ever heard him pronounce the word "nuclear" the same way twice. If you don't believe me, just Google "Bushisms," and enjoy the sad hilarity.

Bush has now found a new definition for the word "appeasement."

In a speech in front of the Israeli Knesset on May 15, President Bush derided those who urge negotiations with enemy countries.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The White House denies that this comment directly targets Barack Obama or the Democrats, but it's hard to see who else he would be taking aim at. The reference to appeasement neatly ties today's terrorists with the Nazi's. In addition, it ties the solutions presented by today's critics of standoff diplomacy to the hand-wringing approach that Prime Minister Chamberlain and others engaged in that allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia during the pre-WWII Lebensraum campaign.

However, I didn't feel like appeasement was the right word to describe the nature of the arguments presented by liberals today. I checked up on some definitions...

Appease- 1. To bring peace, pacify, quiet, or settle. Oxford English Dictionary, 1989

Hmmm... sounds like a pretty damn good thing to me. I mean, wouldn't it be a good thing if we were able to pacify the world through negotiations? And call me naive (like most conservatives probably would) but I find it really hard to settle a dispute with the silent treatment. I think the only time its been successfully employed on me has been by my girlfriend, and I'd say the relationship between my girlfriend and I is significantly different than that between the United States and Iran. At least I hope so...

To be a responsible blogger, however, I found a second definition:

Appease- 1. To conciliate or buy off by political or economic concessions, usually at the sacrifice of principle Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1993

Here is where I feel Bush has got things the most wrong. Intellectually, he made the leap that people who are willing to talk to their enemies are willing to make sacrifices to them. I don't think that's a fair assertion. Neither Obama nor any of the other voices who favor negotiation and diplomacy over standoff have indicated that they are willing to grant concessions to enemy countries. They're just saying its unreasonable to expect the diplomatic climate to change if you're not willing to talk to your opponents.

Talking to your enemies is not appeasement. Bush is correct when he says that appeasement doesn't work, and that it is a strategy that has been discredited over time. But diplomatic tact and negotiations are far different than appeasement. And chances are they will probably work better than the failed cowboy tactics that America has used since 9/11.

Thanks for reading,

The Conscientious Observer

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent. -Mahatma Gandhi