In September of 1938, there was a meeting between the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the leaders of France, Italy (Mussolini) and Germany (Hitler). The subject was the German's stated intention to invade and annex a part of Czechoslovakia where the majority of the people were of German ancestry. With no participation by the Czechs, the four leaders agreed that Germany could have the region. Chamberlain also got a separate pact with Hitler in which the UK and Germany renounced war one against the other. Chamberlain famously returned to London to a hero's welcome, proclaiming that he brought "peace for our time." It was the high point (or low point) of the appeasement of Hitler by Britain and France. In less than a year (and despite the peace agreement), World War II had broken out when the Germans invaded Poland. Chamberlain and the British policy of appeasement had ended and the Brits were forced to confront the true evil of Hitler and the Nazis.
For many decades after that, appeasement has been a dirty word among in American political thinking. We had "peace through strength" and a rejection of appeasement coming from both sides of the aisle. There were differences to be certain. The idea of appeasement, however, was not seriously pushed until we entered the 21st century.
After 9-11, though, the thought processes that led to appeasement resurfaced. Some stopped concerning themselves with what was right and changed to the viewpoint that America had to look at the "grievances" of our adversaries to see to which ones we could agree. That's why after 9-11 there was serious thought given to the question of what did we do wrong, or asking why did the terrorists hate us. It wasn't that these were monsters who had killed thousands of innocent civilians. No, for these people the issue was how had we brought all this upon ourselves. What could we give the terrorists to appease them, to end their anger?
The idea of appeasement reached its zenith under Barack Obama. It's the entire basis for the nuclear deal with Iran, the JCPOA. Obama decided that the USA should basically give the Iranians what they wanted. The Iranians wanted a nuclear force; we would sign a deal that guaranteed that they would have one after a delay of ten years. The Iranians wanted no interference with their economy in the form of sanctions for misdeeds like supporting terrorists, killing Americans, and attacking our allies (and our own troops). Obama gave it to them. Sanctions were suspended. Hundreds of billions of dollars were given to the mullahs. The theory was that after we appeased them, they would no longer hate us nor want to do us harm.
Obama's move didn't work. He gave Iran hundreds of billions and the Iranians used the money to promote more terrorism against America and our allies. The Iranians didn't even abide by the provisions in the JCPOA that limited enrichment of uranium (which is a precursor to nuclear weapons.)
President Trump had a different take on the idea of appeasing Iran. Trump would have none of it. He withdrew the USA from the JCPOA. The Iranians didn't stop their support for terrorism. Indeed, in the last six months, they have stepped it up. When we learned that Iranian general Soleimani was in Baghdad meeting with the local militias Iran controls inside Iraq in order to plan for further terror attacks on Americans, Trump order that Soleimani be taken out. That happened a few days ago.
The point of discussing appeasement, however, truly pertains to the reaction to the strike on Soleimani. In their own way, each of the Democrat candidates for president in 2020 has now come out in favor of appeasement. They all admit that Soleimani was a very bad person. Each of them, however, has a reason why we should have waited and done nothing to stop the attacks he was planning. One common refrain has been that President Trump may have started a war with this attack. Oh no! Of course, this ignores the demonstrable fact that Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 when they took over the US embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats hostage for over a year. During the Iraq War, more than a third of all US servicemen killed in action dies as a result of Iranian roadside bombs and booby traps. In just the last six months, eleven bases housing Americans in Iraq came under fire from Iranian controlled forces, and this finally resulted in both dead and wounded Americans. The war was already here.
The Democrats basically want to just let Iran have what it wants, namely hegemony over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, i.e., a new Persian Empire. They almost all agree that this would be a very bad thing for America, but they think that the way to prevent it is to let the Iranians see that we won't oppose it. It's bizarre.
It seems strange to think that in 2020 the Democrats are nominating someone who is the heir to the appeasement philosophies of Neville Chamberlain. It may be strange, but it is also true.
For many decades after that, appeasement has been a dirty word among in American political thinking. We had "peace through strength" and a rejection of appeasement coming from both sides of the aisle. There were differences to be certain. The idea of appeasement, however, was not seriously pushed until we entered the 21st century.
After 9-11, though, the thought processes that led to appeasement resurfaced. Some stopped concerning themselves with what was right and changed to the viewpoint that America had to look at the "grievances" of our adversaries to see to which ones we could agree. That's why after 9-11 there was serious thought given to the question of what did we do wrong, or asking why did the terrorists hate us. It wasn't that these were monsters who had killed thousands of innocent civilians. No, for these people the issue was how had we brought all this upon ourselves. What could we give the terrorists to appease them, to end their anger?
The idea of appeasement reached its zenith under Barack Obama. It's the entire basis for the nuclear deal with Iran, the JCPOA. Obama decided that the USA should basically give the Iranians what they wanted. The Iranians wanted a nuclear force; we would sign a deal that guaranteed that they would have one after a delay of ten years. The Iranians wanted no interference with their economy in the form of sanctions for misdeeds like supporting terrorists, killing Americans, and attacking our allies (and our own troops). Obama gave it to them. Sanctions were suspended. Hundreds of billions of dollars were given to the mullahs. The theory was that after we appeased them, they would no longer hate us nor want to do us harm.
Obama's move didn't work. He gave Iran hundreds of billions and the Iranians used the money to promote more terrorism against America and our allies. The Iranians didn't even abide by the provisions in the JCPOA that limited enrichment of uranium (which is a precursor to nuclear weapons.)
President Trump had a different take on the idea of appeasing Iran. Trump would have none of it. He withdrew the USA from the JCPOA. The Iranians didn't stop their support for terrorism. Indeed, in the last six months, they have stepped it up. When we learned that Iranian general Soleimani was in Baghdad meeting with the local militias Iran controls inside Iraq in order to plan for further terror attacks on Americans, Trump order that Soleimani be taken out. That happened a few days ago.
The point of discussing appeasement, however, truly pertains to the reaction to the strike on Soleimani. In their own way, each of the Democrat candidates for president in 2020 has now come out in favor of appeasement. They all admit that Soleimani was a very bad person. Each of them, however, has a reason why we should have waited and done nothing to stop the attacks he was planning. One common refrain has been that President Trump may have started a war with this attack. Oh no! Of course, this ignores the demonstrable fact that Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 when they took over the US embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats hostage for over a year. During the Iraq War, more than a third of all US servicemen killed in action dies as a result of Iranian roadside bombs and booby traps. In just the last six months, eleven bases housing Americans in Iraq came under fire from Iranian controlled forces, and this finally resulted in both dead and wounded Americans. The war was already here.
The Democrats basically want to just let Iran have what it wants, namely hegemony over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, i.e., a new Persian Empire. They almost all agree that this would be a very bad thing for America, but they think that the way to prevent it is to let the Iranians see that we won't oppose it. It's bizarre.
It seems strange to think that in 2020 the Democrats are nominating someone who is the heir to the appeasement philosophies of Neville Chamberlain. It may be strange, but it is also true.
No comments:
Post a Comment