Posted on 07/01/2010 5:07:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was ecstatic after the Munich Conference of 1938. He bragged that he had coaxed Adolf Hitler into stopping further aggression after the Nazis gobbled up much of Czechoslovakia.
Arriving home, Chamberlain proudly displayed Hitler's signature on the Munich Agreement, exclaiming to adoring crowds, "I believe it is peace for our time. ... And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds."
But after listening to Chamberlain's nice nonsense, Hitler remarked to his generals about a week later, "Our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich." War followed in about a year.
Sometimes deterrence against aggression is lost with just a few unfortunate words or a relatively minor gesture.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a comprehensive address to the National Press Club in early 1950. Either intentionally or by accident, he mentioned that South Korea was beyond the American defense perimeter. Communist North Korea, and later China, agreed. War broke out six months later.
Well before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and sent aid to communist rebels in Central America, President Jimmy Carter announced that America had lost its "inordinate fear of communism."
In 1981, Britain, as a goodwill gesture in the growing Falkland Islands dispute, promised to withdraw a tiny warship from the islands. But to the Argentine dictatorship, that reset-button diplomacy was seen as appeasement. It convinced them that the United Kingdom was no longer the nation of Admiral Nelson, the Duke of Wellington and Winston Churchill. So Argentina invaded the Falklands.
Why, after a horrendous war with Iran, would Saddam Hussein have risked another one with Kuwait? Perhaps because he believed that the United States would not stop him. That was a logical inference when American ambassador April Glaspie told him, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait ... the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
Saddam invaded a little over a week later.
These examples could be expanded and serve as warnings. In the last 18 months, the Obama administration has made a number of seemingly insignificant remarks and gestures -- many well-intended and reasoned -- that might be interpreted as a new U.S. indifference to aggression.
Consider the number of apologies Obama has issued to various states that suggest we, not others, are the problem.
To Turkey, Obama said we had often been at fault, and added remorse for slavery and our treatment of Native Americans.
To Russia, he emphasized a need for an American diplomatic reset button.
To the Japanese, he touched on the brutal way America ended World War II.
To the world at large, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay, the war on terror, and some activities of the CIA.
To Latin America, he rued our past insensitive diplomacy.
To the G-20, he lamented America's prior rude behavior.
To the Muslim world, he confessed to wrong policies and past mistakes.
To Europe, he apologized for our occasionally strained relations.
To the United Nations, he said he felt bad about America's unilateral behavior.
In addition, Obama has bowed to Saudi autocrats and Chinese dictators. In morally equivalent fashion, an Obama subordinate brought up to human-rights violator China the new Arizona immigration law. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that we would be neutral in a new and growing Falklands Island dispute. And America has put Israel on notice that the old close relationship is changing.
Turkey is growing increasingly anti-American. A newly aggressive Russia is beaming that we have caved on a number of contentious issues.
The Japanese are distancing themselves from America. British, French and German leaders are increasingly wary of the United States. The Mexican president criticizes Arizona from the White House lawn.
War is now more, not less, likely in the Middle East. In Latin America, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela are as hostile to the U.S. as ever. Brazil is now seeking to assert new authority contrary to U.S. policies.
The lesson?
Even little words and gestures still matter in high-stakes international relations. Bad actors look hard for even the smallest sign that they might get away with aggression without consequences.
A deferential and apologetic President Obama may think he is making those abroad like us --and he may be right in some cases. But if history is any guide, aggressive powers are paying close attention to these seemingly insignificant signs Soon, they may turn their wild ideas into concrete aggression -- once they convince themselves that America neither wants to nor is able to stop them.
Well said. Bump.
Great article.
Obama thinks the world sees America as more friendly. It doesn’t - it sees it as weak.
His foreign policy is a mess. Insult your allies and bow and prostrate to your enemies. It’s really weird.
Didn’t a smart man once say, “He who IGNORES the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them.”
I find the similarity between the word IGNORE and IGNORANT to quite fitting in this case.
To quote someone else, “OY.”
In the feminized mindset of the left,
“weakness”, ie, submissiveness,
is seen as “friendly” and non-threatening,
whereas maleness, capability, and ability to protect oneself and dependents
is seen as threatening to a leftist.
Not at all weird.
From The Won's perspective, he's prostrating to his allies and insulting his enemies.
Our enemy is the worm in the white house.
The leftists would tell us that appeasement leads to peace, and belligerence leads to war. History tells us the opposite. Which should we believe?
Belief is the enemy, as is the worm, it eats the dead or those who appear that way.
So, when did Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin spill the soul bowl and Chamberlain entered 0bama’s body?
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.