Chef Jeff Hub Spot

Go to my alter-ego place, right next to the water cooler, and read up on my rantings and ravings there.

And I invite you become a hub member! It's just like blogging, only better!

Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi

Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi

Appeasement

Appeasement

Barack Obama reacted strongly to words spoken by President Bush to the Israeli Knesset recently, words that likened any attempt to talk with Iran to those of people who thought they could have stopped Hitler’s mad agenda.

Much to my own surprise, I actually do agree that talking with the leaders of Iran is unlikely to bring about any major change in their policies or ideas. That said, I also believe that to simply rule out any conversations merely strengthens the hand of people like President of the Republic of Iran Ahmadinejad. He makes his living telling his people that America hates them, and that he is the only one who can save them from us.

Moreover, they believe it. Why? Because, in a way, he is right: We DO hate Iran, and have proven that quite adequately over the years. Our backing of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war only goes to strengthen that belief amongst the average Iranian.

I will digress a bit, to the days before Ahmadinejad’s victory in the elections in Iran. There were more moderate voices heard back then, admittedly voices that did not meet all of America’s expectations, but moderate voices just the same.

At times it was said that if the American president had indeed started a dialogue with these moderates, it would have been the kiss of death for their chances. Other voices from within Iran said the opposite was true, that the average Iranian wanted reassurance that the U.S. did not have nefarious plans for wiping them out.

I have a friend from Iran who says that her family, and many others, still hope for some rapport with the U.S. No, they do not want to become “U.S. puppets”, but they do want the tensions to decrease.

There are those who fear Iran’s nuclear intentions. I am among them. An Iran with nuclear weapons is as fearful to me as any other nation in possession of nukes. I am afraid of the U.S. with nukes, since there is always the possibility that they might someday be used, or as former Senator Goldwater once said, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”. Others may disagree with me, but I actually can envision a time when we would use our nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves.

And this brings us back to appeasement. What exactly does it mean, and does it apply to Barack Obama’s statements that he would meet with people such as Ahmadinejad? First, let's look at what appeasement has generally come to mean. At Wikipedia, it states: Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement)


With that in mind, let us next look at what Barack Obama has said.

Barack Obama has not called for the surrender of our position vis-à-vis Iran, nor has he said that he would capitulate on the important points of American diplomacy concerning Iran’s responsibilities toward the world community. He has not said he would look for a “peace at any price” approach to the problem.

What he has said is that diplomacy should not be set aside in dealing with Iran, because diplomacy is what we do best, and is always the first step in resolving any conflict. In an interview with the New York Times Obama (11/02/2007)stated that he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if he were elected this November. The article goes onto say that Obama ‘would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.’

Elsewhere Obama stated that we need to deal with Iran with “cooler heads” than we have in the recent past. He says this is not appeasement, but the start of building a community of nations to see the Iranian threat as we do. He claims that Bush and Cheney have so isolated other nations that they either fear or mistrust us, or both.

President Bush no doubt has his own ideas and opinions about how to deal with Iran. In the remaining days of his administration there is doubt that he will see his way through to a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, or that he will be the one to forge a two-state solution in the Middle East.

While these are lofty goals, and certainly would be welcomed as genuine initiatives that would bring about peace, there are too many close to Bush, in my opinion, who believe that stirring up trouble in the Middle East strengthens our ability to control events there. Some seem to desire bringing about Armageddon, others simply seem to believe that the trouble will always require us to be involved there, and since we are the dominant military power on the planet, we will get our way through either intimidation or by propping up regimes that favor our point of view.

Obama, it seems to me, sees through this. He has no Pollyanna view of relations with Iran. Indeed, he has spoken out forcefully that we must not and must never concede the moral high ground to the likes of Ahmadinejad. Instead, we must use diplomacy instead of troops to carry out the will of the United States, and if diplomacy fails, the pressure will need to be ratcheted up, up to and including military force. This is not the view of a ‘Liberal Pacifist’, but rather that of a concerned, intelligent and observant future leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

This morning on Fox and Friends I heard former presidential candidate Fred Thompson berate Obama by saying that we need a president who is aware of and understands the world, the dangers out there and how to deal with other nations. I would say that if that is true, then how did George Bush ever get elected? His understanding of the world was the source of great humor back in 1999. His actions on and about 9-11 reached for greatness, but then he slipped back into the old “You are either with us or against us” outlook of the world.

The world is either with us or against us based upon the actions that we, as a nation, and we, as a People, make or fail to make. In my opinion, based solely upon my outlook of the way the world looks, I believe there are many ways in which we can and must engage the other countries in our world. At times we must use the carrot, and at times we must use the stick, and at times we must leave well-enough alone, but no matter which of the approaches we use, it must be the method which is correct for the United States.

It is easy to wax nostalgic and get on the patriotism bandwagon – it requires no great thought to agree with those who shout the loudest, but in doing so, we abrogate the great trust ever given to us, the hugely enormous responsibility our founding fathers and mothers handed to each new generation, to think and to plan and to understand what it will take to make our nation better and stronger with each passing year.

By 2012 I may be terribly disappointed in a President Barack Obama administration – I can’t say yet whether or not he will do a good job or merely be an interesting footnote in the history of our nation.

I do believe, however, that he is no fool, no neophyte, and most certainly is not ignorant of the tremendous task before him. As he moves ever closer to what seems to be the inevitable nomination of his party, I wish him the best. I wish him wisdom, God’s blessing and the ability to see beyond partisan politics, beyond the pressures to act simply because it seems expedient, beyond the bad advice he may be given over the term he is in office, and expect for him to give us a clear vision of what he wants to do and where he wants to lead us. If he can do this, I believe he may have a chance to become the greatest American president in decades, if not amongst the top few who met the crisis head on and used intelligence and wisdom to make America a better nation, a better citizen of the world.

Like Lincoln, he comes in as an unknown qualtity, with little legislative experience under his belt. And like Lincoln, he enters the political arena at a time of great, fearful change. I can only hope that like Lincoln, he rises to the challenge and overcomes the dangerous, divisive days yet to come.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHJZxNm-Cg

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/05/bushs-remarks-a.html