"Troublesome Young Men"

History repeats itself, but rarely exactly. Examples of both cowardice and courage have lessons to teach, and so do comparisons with the past. The oft-drawn analogy between abrupt withdrawal from Iraq and Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 is inexact, but irresistible. Chamberlain, like some of the loudest voices crying now for taking the last plane out of Baghdad, was regarded by his colleagues and the newspapers as "a hero for peace."

Though many Englishmen knew better, few politicians were brave enough to speak up when Chamberlain returned from meeting Hitler in Munich in 1938, proclaiming "peace in our time." Sentiment prevailed, emotion ruled. Gratification of the moment trumped appeals to the longer view. A cool assessment of harsh and unforgiving reality gave way to a rose-colored view of an imagined world at peace and play.

Those who knew in their hearts that Chamberlain had betrayed Czechoslovakia nevertheless felt relief, reassuring themselves that, after all, appeasement is always better than war. Francis Williams, the editor of the Daily Herald, a Labor newspaper, was typical. He might be a peace blogger today. Refusing to consider warnings that Hitler would exploit Chamberlain's retreat to make matters worse, he focused on images of children, including his own, playing in peaceful streets and country lanes, doing handstands or riding their bicycles: "Such things -- and a hundred others -- came between intellect and will," he said, "and cried out that it was worth doing anything to avoid war."

In her book "Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England," Lynne Olson captures the spirit of the time and shows how difficult it was to argue against the prevailing anti-war atmosphere. Who, after all, wants war? Who doesn't prefer peace to turmoil? Nevertheless, when Hitler marched into Poland, England declared war -- and did nothing else. Mocking Teddy Roosevelt's famous maxim, Chamberlain spoke loudly and carried a small stick.

It took a few troublesome young Tories to defy Chamberlain's policy of defeat, putting their careers at risk (and most of them paid a price) to oust Chamberlain and bring in Winston Churchill. What's clear only in retrospect is how hard it is to invoke common sense against the peace mob. If we're lucky, there will be a troublesome young man to make trouble. Duff Cooper was the first lord of the admiralty in 1938. He liked his job and wanted to keep it, but resigned in protest. "It was 'peace with honor' that I couldn't stomach," he said. "If [Chamberlain] had come back from Munich saying 'peace with terrible, unmitigated, unparalleled dishonor,' perhaps I would have stayed. But peace with honor!"

Words like these reverberate now in Washington. Even before we get the eagerly awaited September progress report from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the peace-at-any-price mob can't wait to declare peace. Honor has nothing to do with it. The peace mob already knows all they want to know.

Terrorism is not fascism, but the terrorists have the familiar lust for blood. Osama bin Laden is not Adolf Hitler, but like Hitler he recognized vulnerability in the West when acts of terror against the American embassies in Africa, the USS Cole and the first bombing of the World Trade Center went unanswered. The plotters of al Qaeda similarly recognize faint hearts in the West. Friends as well as enemies are measuring how dependable an ally America and Britain really are. Evil men in Afghanistan and Iraq can't invade the West, but the first line of defense runs through those miserable places.

George W. Bush is no Winston Churchill, but he can learn from him. Churchill offered his people a deep understanding of why war was both necessary and inevitable, and asked for their help. He got it. Three days after he replaced Chamberlain, he replied to his skeptics: "What is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory." Gordon Brown, the new British prime minister, is no Churchill, either. He describes the war in the dullest of dull language: "In Iraq we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep." No ringing call to arms there.

The Iraq war is unpopular, but losing it would be disastrous. Rudolph Giuliani got it right in the Sunday morning Republican debate in Iowa: "The reality is that you do not achieve peace through weakness and appeasement. . . . We should seek a victory in Iraq and in Baghdad, and we should define the victory." Looking reality in the eye is the work of troublesome young men -- and women. Is there now one among us?

The name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquility, servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death.
Cicero
Roman author, orator, & politician (106 BC - 43 BC)

Kind of like our Democrats over here, but not as bad: Our Democrats are now coming out and boldly proclaiming they are hoping for an American defeat in the WOT because such a defeat will help the Dems consolidate power. They put party above country. Can we now admit they are traitors?

Appeasement never works. In all fairness, Neville Chamberlain was a decent man who wanted the good of the world and pace between Germany and England. It was not for lack of trying he sought to try to put the horrors of the World War behind the two countries. How was he repaid? With wickedness, deception, betrayal and aggression. He died a broken man. What we can learn from his fate is that we must stand up to evil or we will be destroyed by it. The West learned, almost too late, there could be no compromise with Nazism. We dare not make the mistake of learning that compromise with Islamofascism is not either in the cards. It must be throughly destroyed and there is no greater truism to be appreciated that sometimes war is the only guarantor of true peace. The long century of peace since the Second World War is proof of this. In short, we must defeat the enemies of the West to assure our own survival.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

I'm ashamed to admit that I really don't know the answer to this question: Was Chamberlain a man who preferred peace or a pacifist?

The former are the majority whose only argument is where exactly to draw the line.

The later are the willing accomplices of evil and share the guilt of those who do evil.

This, like so many articles on the subject miss the point entirely. We are not fighting a war in Iraq. We are preventing our enemies from fighting a civil war. It’s not in any way analogous to WW II. If Churchill had sent an English army to Germany to prevent a German Civil war, then it would be analogous.

Yeah, right.

Two different factions within our common enemy are in a power struggle to see who’s gonna be the dominate force in the war against us. Lets not bother them until they’re all ready to go under a unified and even more potentially destructive force.

This “civil war” in Iraq is an idea created by AQ and propagated by those who get on their knees and suck from the enemy propagandist spigot.

Anything to distract, anything to dissuade, anything to dismantle our effort to stand against them. It’s all for the benefit of the enemy and those who can’t pull their heads far enough out of their tail pipes to crack the carbon cake off their sensor packages to see through the enemy’s words and goals.

Oh, and for those too stupid to actually think past the spin and twist of the defeat mongers, this “civil war” is no different than the fight between the SA and the SS. It’s all about which particular clustergaggle of evil bastards are going to take full dominance in this war.

If Churchill had sent an English army to Germany to prevent a German Civil war, then it would be analogous. If Churchill had sent an English army to Germany to prevent a German Civil war, then it would be analogous.

It's more like the Spanish Civil war, where Germany and Russia sent troops to fight so it was Spanish civilians who died, not German or Russian.

If we fought the Jihadists here, every Muslim country in the world would support the Jihadists. Fight in Iraq, and we will actually have a chance that some Muslims get sick of it and stop supporting violent Jihad, even if they never get around to supporting us.

Unless you subscribe to the theory of the Universal Muslim Caliphate, how can you describe a fight between Saudis, Jordanians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Bosnians, etc., (and some Iraqis) and the US Army as an Iraqi civil war? It's an invasion by foreign elements.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.