Michael,
We've all been thru the parallels and lack of parallels between Chamberlain and the present so often, I simply see no reason to return. Suffice to say, I argued then and would still argue, were we to go back there (please, no) that the parallels don't work. And for a large variety of reasons.
As for the use of "appeasement" to characterize the position of opponents of an increasingly bellicose foreign policy, it's like the policy itself. Let's just shoot some thing off without thinking. Both Iraq and NK are far too complex foreign policy ventures for cheap shot artists at work. Let me be a bit clearer. I think the Bush Iraq policy is perhaps the most underexplained and overjustified major US foreign policy initiative, certainly, in my memory of such. No doubt others can find some; I can't. By the latter, "overjustified", I simply mean the language of pre-emptive war, of human rights (when the folk in this administration have no record on that score), of avoiding talk about oil, when it's clear that the global oil supply is the central concern.
Geez, I don't know, Michael. You got me started. My apologies. I shouldn't hit you with all this. |
