Re: TownHall.com – 5/16/2008 – “None Dare Call It ‘Appeasement’” – David Limbaugh

Limbaugh asks why “It's perfectly fair for Barack Obama and his cohorts to repeatedly disparage President Bush's foreign policy as "cowboy diplomacy" but unspeakably horrific for Bush to analogize the Democrats' approach to foreign policy to appeasing Hitler?”. The answer is because (disparaging or not) Bush’s foreign policy is a very good example of “cowboy diplomacy” and the Democrat’s foreign policy is nothing whatsoever like appeasing Hitler.

What is “cowboy diplomacy” anyway? It is carrying out foreign policy following the model of interpersonal relations that most of us associate with the old wild west --- with us / against us alliances and shoot first / ask later action. Sounds like Bush #2’s approach to foreign policy to me. Whether being accused of being a cowboy diplomat is disparaging or not is a matter of opinion --- as far as I am concerned there is a time for cowboy diplomacy and a time where cowboy diplomacy is quite inappropriate. I think today, on the issues facing us with Iran and especially Syria, cowboy diplomacy is the wrong tactic. But there are other issues and other times when I would support such an approach --- say the start of Gulf War I, where I thought that if anything, we took too long to act.

How would negotiating with Iran or Syria resemble “appeasing Hitler”? Hitler wasn’t appeased by being negotiated with. He was appeased by getting agreement to his demands without having to provide sufficient enforceable concessions in return. Possibly Limbaugh thinks Americans are just too weak willed or weak brained to accomplish effective negotiations. But I believe we (but probably not Bush) can negotiate at least as well as either the Iranians or the Syrians, and in any negotiations we would be the winners. Limbaugh wants to hide from adversity rather than face the challenge of talking --- he’s just afraid to do what is required to win! He must be one of those American hating chicken livered Liberals that Conservatives rant about.

It is interesting that while Bush was blasting away at “appeasers” who are willing to negotiate with countries like Syria, Israel is in heavy negotiations with Syria on issues of mutual interest. Israel, unlike the US, has been willing to negotiate with almost anyone (it draws the line against terrorists currently terrorizing them) face to face and has suffered no apparent harm from talking while achieving some notable success, including an unlikely but long standing peace with Jordan and Egypt.

Talk is cheap; action is dear; neither is ab initio beneficial or detrimental. Appeasement always refers to action (or refusal to take action), never to talk, and it’s the action (or inaction), not the talk, that does the harm. Talk is so cheap with so little risk that it’s ridiculous not to talk --- so long as you’re willing to fight when necessary, even as you talk.