The argument of the day, between Barack Obama and John McCain is over who is best prepared to handle America’s international interactions with enemies. Obama says he will “talk with” some foreign government officials who’s international objectives might be in serious opposition to those of the U.S. McCain says that Obama’s willingness to talk is appeasement, not much different from the appeasement of Adolf Hitler by Europe just prior to the outbreak of WWII. There are two points I would make about this argument.
First, there is a difference between “appeasement” and “talking with.” Appeasement means creating calm or peace by giving in to the other side. Talking with means having a conversation with someone. It in no way implies giving in. Thus, McCain’s criticism of Obama is based on McCain’s rather slippery definition of what Obama actually proposed. Obama did not say appeasement, did not mean appeasement, and does not intend appeasement. McCain is criticizing a ghost of his own making.
Second, McCain wants to continue the Bush-administration policy of isolating our international opponents and refusing to directly engage with those we consider our enemies. How well has this policy worked? Let’s look at a couple of examples.
Iran’s president has called Israel a “stinking corpse.” That nation has done everything it could to thwart our efforts in Iraq and it continues inexorably toward the development of its own nuclear weapon. The Bush administration, supported by McCain, has refused to talk with Iran, except on the most superficial level. Bush refers to Iran as evil, uses America’s diplomatic power to impose sanctions, and threatens military action. The result has been that Iran has more influence in Middle-Eastern affairs, continues to provide arms to Iraqi insurgents, still officially opposes Israel, and has not slowed its effort to acquire atomic weapons. To put it in other words, the Bush-McCain policy is a dog that just won't hunt.”
The United States has refused to talk to the Palestinian organization Hamas, because they engage in terrorism. Anyone who follows the events in the Middle East knows how that plan has worked out.
We have refused to engage directly with the Lebanese group, Hizbullah. Last year we enthusiastically supported Israel’s decision to attack Hizbullah strongholds in Southern Lebanon. Because of that attack Hizbullah rules Southern Lebanon, is now stronger than before the attack and has more credibility with the Lebanese people than ever.
I could give you more examples than this page would hold, but I hope these illustrations make my point clear. The Bush-McCain policy of isolation and direct challenge has not worked. In fact, it has produced almost nothing but failures all over the world. I’m not suggesting that talking with our enemies will solve all our international problems, but I am suggesting it cannot hurt. Talking with our enemies may not help us, but it cannot possibly do any more harm that the policy Bush has employed and McCain supports.
President Bush and Senator McCain say they refuse to appease our enemies. However, their action seems to be accomplishing everything for our enemies that an appeasement policy could possibly bring.
