The Mental Path to Appeasement

Real Clear Politics ^ | June 14, 2006 | Tony Blankley

[yoe]

The Western response to the threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons is tracking dangerously toward appeasement and failure. It is not yet inevitable -- President Bush has insisted in two State of the Union addresses and currently that he will not permit it to happen. But most government officials in Europe and here, and of course the dominant media, are already deeply into resignation, rationalization and denial. Indeed, in the last couple of years, the absolute exclusion of a military option has become the only "respectable" posture amongst both European and American officials and senior media personages.

This rationalizing mentality was epitomized by the statement of Gen. Barry McCaffrey on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. The general is a usually levelheaded and deeply experienced senior statesman. He has criticized Bush's policies where he disagrees with them, but he is not anti-Bush. His statement is worth reading carefully.

"Mr. Russert: 'So it's inevitable they get the nuclear bomb, in your opinion?'

"Gen McCaffrey: 'I think so. I think they're going nuclear five, 10 years from now. We'll be confronted. And that's not a good outcome. That argues that perhaps Saudi money and Egyptian technology gets an Arab Sunni bomb to confront the Persian Shia bomb. None of us want to see proliferation in the Gulf. This is a time for serious diplomatic interventions.'"

The last sentence calling for diplomacy is such a feeble, mantra-like invocation of a hopeless solution when preceded by his confident statements that he thinks they want the bomb and will get it. Virtually no one believes Iran only wants peaceful nuclear generation. Neither do serious people believe that enactable economic and diplomatic sanctions will deflect the Iranians from their objective.

Thus, the offer on the table -- to give them peaceful nuclear technology or threaten them with non-military sanction -- suffers from providing a "carrot that is not tempting and a stick that is not threatening." (Ian Kershaw's "Making Friends with Hitler.")

This evolving mental path to appeasement mirrors in uncanny detail a similar path taken by the British government to Hitler in the 1930s.

Contrary to popular history, the British government was under little illusion concerning Hitler's nature and objectives in the early 1930s. Those illusions only emerged as mental rationalizations later in the 1930s.

In April 1933, just three months after Hitler became chancellor of Germany, the British government presciently assessed the man and his plans. The outgoing British ambassador to Germany, Sir Horace Rumbold, who had been closely observing Hitler for years, reported back to London in a special dispatch to the prime minister on April 26, 1933. He warned his government to take "Mein Kampf" seriously.

Rumbold assessed that Hitler would resort to periodic peaceful claims "to induce a sense of security abroad," and Hitler planned to expand into Russia and "would not abandon the cardinal points of his program," [but would seek to] lull adversaries into such a state of coma that they will allow themselves to be engaged one by one." Rumbold was sure that "a deliberate policy is now being pursued, whose aim was to prepare Germany militarily before her adversaries could interfere." He also warned that Hitler personally believed in his violent anti-Semitism and that it was central to his government policy.

Back in London, Maj. Gen. A.C. Temperley briefed the prime minister on the Rumbold dispatch that if Britain did not stop Hitler right away, the alternative was "to allow things to drift for another five years, by which time . . . war seems inevitable." In the event, general war in Europe came in six years, not five.

But because the British people, still under the sway of their memory of WWI, were against military action, and because the politicians wanted to spend precious tax revenues on domestic programs, they walked away from their own good judgment.

The unpleasantness of dealing with Hitler and the public's abhorrence of another war led the new British ambassador to Germany, Sir Eric Phipps, responding to the Rumbold dispatch, to argue in that fateful month of April 1933 that: "We cannot regard him solely as the author of "Mein Kampf," for in such a case we should logically be bound to adopt the policy of preventive war." So, he argued, "The best hope is to bind him, that is, by a [disarmament] agreement bearing his signature freely and proudly given. ... By some odd kink in his mental makeup he might even feel compelled to honor it."

Here we have the 1930s version of Gen. McCaffrey's statement. Ambassador Phipps first states the obvious: To wit, if Hitler is as the government believes him to be, logic requires a preventive war. But they don't want to do that, so he hopes Hitler isn't as they know him to be, and they seek a diplomatic agreement, which even Phipps recognized was unlikely to be honored.

Just so, Gen. McCaffrey, representing the overwhelming view of government officials and major media in the West, first states the obvious: Iran will get the bomb. Then he ends with: So let's just do diplomacy.

In fact, Western leaders are resigned to Iran getting the bomb. The diplomacy is understood to be as pointless as getting Hitler to honor a disarmament treaty. But "leaders" have to be seen to be doing something -- even if they know it is futile.

This defeatist attitude exists largely because with the Iraq war as bad precedent -- just as WWI was a bad precedent for another war in 1933 -- military action has been placed, as an emotional response to unpleasantness, out of the question by a weary Western elite.

That is where we are today: about four-fifths down the mental path to appeasement. As unpleasant as dealing with Iran today is, it will be incomparably nastier in a few years when they have the bomb operational. Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?

[SE Mom]

As unpleasant as dealing with Iran today is, it will be incomparably nastier in a few years when they have the bomb operational. Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?

---

Blankley- as ever- on target..

[Tolik]

Tony Blankley:

...This evolving mental path to appeasement mirrors in uncanny detail a similar path taken by the British government to Hitler in the 1930s.

Contrary to popular history, the British government was under little illusion concerning Hitler's nature and objectives in the early 1930s.

Those illusions only emerged as mental rationalizations later in the 1930's.

In April 1933, just three months after Hitler became chancellor of Germany, the British government presciently assessed the man and his plans. The outgoing British ambassador to Germany, Sir Horace Rumbold, who had been closely observing Hitler for years, reported back to London in a special dispatch to the prime minister on April 26, 1933. He warned his government to take "Mein Kampf" seriously.

He assessed that Hitler would resort to periodic peaceful claims "to induce a sense of security abroad." But that he planned to expand into Russia and "would not abandon the cardinal points of his program," but would seek to "lull adversaries into such a state of coma that they will allow themselves to be engaged one by one." The ambassador was sure that "a deliberate policy is now being pursued, whose aim was to prepare Germany militarily before her adversaries could interfere." He also warned that Hitler personally believed in his violent anti-Semitism and that it was central to his government policy. Back in London, Major General A.C. Temperley briefed the prime minister on the Rumbold dispatch that if Britain did not stop Hitler right away, the alternative was "to allow things to drift for another five years, by which time ... war seems inevitable." In the event, general war in Europe came in six years, not five.

But because the British people, still under the sway of their memory of WWI, were against military action, and because the politicians wanted to spend precious tax revenues on domestic programs, they walked away from their own good judgment.

...Ambassador Phipps first states the obvious: To wit, if Hitler is as the government believes him to be, logic requires a preventive war. But they don't want to do that, so he hopes Hitler isn't as they know him to be, and they seek a diplomatic agreement, which even Phipps recognized was unlikely to be honored...

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[bitt]

bump ping

[Paul Ross]

This defeatist attitude exists largely because with the Iraq war as bad precedent -- just as WWI was a bad precedent for another war in 1933 -- military action has been placed, as an emotional response to unpleasantness, out of the question by a weary Western elite.

He doesn't need to say who the weary Western elite is, does he?

I have said since 2004 when it became clear that PC was reigning and Bush refused hot pursuit in 2003 of the WMD's that we knew went into Syria, that the War On Terror, for all practical purposes, was over, that W didn't have the stomach to finish the job.

[RexBeach]

Never, ever let the bad guys get an edge.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Blankley's a good troop. He's right on the button with this topic.

[OB1kNOb]

In fact, Western leaders are resigned to Iran getting the bomb. The diplomacy is understood to be as pointless as getting Hitler to honor a disarmament treaty. But "leaders" have to be seen to be doing something -- even if they know it is futile.

This defeatist attitude exists largely because with the Iraq war as bad precedent -- just as WWI was a bad precedent for another war in 1933 -- military action has been placed, as an emotional response to unpleasantness, out of the question by a weary Western elite.

And this is the very reason why we will see history repeat itself once again on a cataclysmic world-wide scale if free world leaders do not eliminate the Islamic-jihadi psychotic threat before it reaches the nuclear point of no return.

[King Prout]

good catch.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Hat-Trick]

Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?

Hopefully there are/will be a few still left in Israel willing to militarily solve this problem with our without the support of the USA, for the good of all mankind.

It is doubtful that the current or future potential occupants of the White House have the will to address this problem in a pre-emptive, military manner. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[SE Mom]

Given the spineless reaction of the liberal faction in our country- I wonder how much support a thorough bombing of Iran's nuke facilities would receive?

[Hat-Trick]

I wonder how much support a thorough bombing of Iran's nuke facilities would receive?

If we rely only on the MSM and their Zogby-esque liberal poll driven opinions, I'm sure we'll learn that there isn't much support. Regardless - I believe it is obvious that the human cost of not striking pre-emptively will be great - and that in eventual hindsight will pale in comparison to the human cost of eliminating the threat before it is deployable.

[MNJohnnie]

Better go take some basic civics. We are a Constitutional Republic, NOT the Presidential Dictatorship you favorite TV shows tell you we are. If you think the votes in Congress were there for your lunatic "plan", you better cut WAY back on your early morning alcohol intake.

BTW, thank you once again for demonstrating your complete abject knee jerk hate for President Bush. Unfortunately for YOU, there is NO actionable proof the WMDs went to Syria. There were tin foil hate rumors and wack accusations, there is no PROOF to back up even ONE of your claims. Therefore there could be no "hot pursuit" except in the minds of rabid Bush haters. As usually on this topic your opinions are just so much nonsense.

Then look up Operational Overreach. In the midst of dealing with Iraq we were NOT in a position to go into Syria EVEN if the votes were there in the US Congress.

So on every point your rant is absurd nonsense. It is absurd Militarily, Politically even factually.

[Harrius Magnus]

2 points to make:

"Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?"
Answer- many are here on FR.

Another point to make is that Mo, just like Hitler, knows we are "4/5's" the way there to appeasement. If Wolf-Boy and the Mullahs are able to cap their lunatic impulses through the rest of GWB's presidency, it is a done deal. This is a lose-lose proposition for us, and being at someone else's mercy is no way to win a war.

[potlatch]

Thanks bitt.

[Paul Ross]

So you get your knickers in a knot over my merely pointing out that for all practical purposes, there was not going to be any further invasions, that Bush would not even try to push for them. And he sure as hell hasn't. For all practical purposes the WOT is finished once it winds up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is truly sad, because we have conclusive evidence that the Jihadis are indeed closing in on their desires for WMDs.

Better go take some basic civics. We are a Constitutional Republic,

That is what we all keep reminding you to no real effect. We are all surprised and pleased to see you are now at least acknowledging that constitutional principal. Good for you Jonnie...you may grow up some day.

... NOT the Presidential Dictatorship you favorite TV shows tell you we are.

Where did I say he could do these things without authority? The issue is: He hasn't even asked. That's my beef. You don't ask, and in a timely way, you'll never know what Congress would have done. And it could have removed a hell of a lot of pressure on policing Iraq if at least one of the tangential primary enablers were suddenly invaded. As for overstretch...that is something that would not be a problem if somebody didn't keep spending Peace Dividends that are no longer there...downsizing the standing military.

If you think the votes in Congress were there for your lunatic "plan", you better cut WAY back on your early morning alcohol intake.

You are the most sad case of alcoholic poisoning in all of Free Republic. We teetotalers just weep for you. So think again defamer. So you think Congress would not have responded to a case being made? Oh, ye of little faith.

BTW, thank you once again for demonstrating your complete abject knee jerk hate for President Bush.

I don't. I do pity him. And my reservoir of trust is carefully limited to areas where he is unlikely to lie. Sad figure that he is, he is our President. Don't assume that massive policy disagreement equals hate.

Unfortunately for YOU, there is NO actionable proof the WMDs went to Syria.

No?

I suppose for your ilk you need to have Saddam openly testifying in that circus court that he sent the WMD's away...and then that still wouldn't be good enough. Nothing will be good enough now...because too much time has been allowed to lapse.

There were tin foil hate rumors and wack accusations, there is no PROOF to back up even ONE of your claims.

A'hem. Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti. Iraqi General George Sades don't count? Or how about Charles Duelfer's own report?

The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.

Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq—the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein—has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.

But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.

Therefore there could be no "hot pursuit" except in the minds of rabid Bush haters. As usually on this topic your opinions are just so much nonsense.

Your posting is the only hating nonsense here.

[MNJohnnie]

I am sorry I do not waste my time on Know Nothings who merely regurgitate what their pet Radio Ranters tell them to think. You rants are nonsense politically, militarily and factually. You obviously know NOTHING about this topic and merely scream what you feel as facts. Nonsense does not magically change to fact just because you keep screaming it louder and louder

[Paul Ross]

The only one ranting or spewing nonsense here is you. The only one screaming here, is you. The only one who obviously knows nothing about this topic, politically, militarily and factually, is you.

[Paul Ross]

Bump! Good reminder.

[HKMk23]

Aw, come off it, Minne-J!

Heads up FReepers have all seen translation results by jveritas referring to "special weapons"; we've not forgetton the numerous references from time periods reaching all the way back to the Clinton Administration the WMD existed in substantial quantites, we remain well-aware that they ARE not accounted for, and we are not turning a deaf ear to credible sources putting forward evidence-backed claims that there was an 'export' strategy that was both emplaced and implemented.

So, SINCE they existed, AND they remain unaccounted for, AND we have credible testimony that they are now in Syria, how can you be so damnd adamant that the relocation of Saddam's WMD to Syria is nothing more than a George Noory, foil-hat, pipe dream?

If it were just ONE guy out crying in the desert, then you might have a point. It's not. You don't.

You're trying to disclaim an increasingly large and increasingly credible body of testimony that WMD ARE, in fact, in Syria.

Do we KNOW? No. But there is such a volume of increasingly strong evidence that it would be foolish to just casually dismiss it all as fantasy. We've got to take it seriously and make up our minds to find out for ourselves one way or another when we get the chance.

This is ONE mystery we can ill affort to leave unsolved.

Just leaving WMD in Syria to be rolled out by some Syrian Jihadi rabble at a later date would be a colossal "OOPS"; a disasterous chance that we simply cannot take.