|
Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave his appeasement speach, in whch he tried to associate those who question the Iraq war to the appeasers of the 1930s, while those who endorse the war have Churchillian instincts. According to Wikpedia, appeasement is "a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance." Appeasement Definition The question is: is resistance to US war policy in Iraq appeasement and how so? During the Viet Nam era, the administration invoked the ghost of Neville Chamberlain to keep US troops in the rice paddies of Danang. In those days, the theory was that if America didn't stay the course, Communists would flood the rimlands of Asia and threaten our interests in the Phillipines, the Straits of Malacca, Japan and eventually California. It's an argument that cost our country 58,209 lives and perhaps as many as two million lives overall. On the other hand, there are Pentagon studies that describe scenarios when in some circumstances it would be in the US interest to appease, to in effect turn the other cheek, sustaining atomic destruction of our cities without retaliation, to prevent a spasmodic reaction that could cause greater harm without achieving any strategic goals. As regards to Iraq, I think the appeasement argument lacks foundation, as the underlying rationale for that war lacks foundation. The claim that those who disagree with the Bush doctrine are appeasers assumes that there is a relationship between the war in Iraq and the war generally against terrorism (there is either no connection or there is a aggravating connection) and that by withdrawing from Iraq, we give the enemy something that will endanger us. In the case of WWII, the enemy was Nazi Germany, the object of appeasement was the surrender of Sudentland. In the case of Iraq, the enemy is whomever the administration thinks is the enemy, the object of appeasement is whatever the administration thinks is the object of appeasement, and words like victory and defeat remain undefined. Under the circumstances, therefore, it's hard to take the thrust of Mr. Rumsfeld's argument seriously. |