The Appeasement Way

Peter Scoblic did an op-ed over the weekend making the point that yelling "appeasement!" at the slightly sign of diplomacy is a longstanding trend in post-war rightwing foreign policy thinking and it just happens to be wrong all the time. You can read more about this in Scoblic's excellent book or, for that matter, in my book.

The crux of the matter is that while truly conservative foreign policy thought has a long history of wrongness in the United States it's rarely genuinely held sway on the big issues. Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan all at key moments broke with elements of their conservative base to preserve containment, to initiate détente, to continue with the bilateral arms control process, etc., leaving run-amok rightwingery mostly to fester in third world battlefields rather than on the central point of America's relationship with Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Under Bush, though, we've seen it take center stage with disastrous consequences and John McCain is, if anything, more of a true believer than Bush.

Comments

Stop talking to Hitler!

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 8:55 AM

Can we finally stop pretending any thought goes into being a neocon? It's not about sound thinking, but saying "I'm a man and you're a fag." Neocons are the kids who got beat up in school for being fat, slow and anti-social and never were able to effectively fight back. That's why they all want to defeat the next Hitler, to show that they are real men and history will remember them as heroes. For that to happen, neocons need to find the next Hitler who is completely impervious to diplomacy. If they beat up the next Hitler (or have the US military beat up neo-Hitler for them while they jerk off on FoxNews, as if that's the same thing), then maybe daddy will love them despite the fact they went to Oberlin and grad school at U Chicago instead of playing football at Michigan. It's all about showing that you like pussy and your penis isn't teeny.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 9:09 AM

McCain would be a disaster in foreign policy of elected. And we simply cannot afford more of the same that we've had under Bush.

McCain coming after Bush would bring terrible results, and one resounding reason why we voters cannot let that happen.

Posted by cm | May 19, 2008 9:12 AM

France Admits Contacts With Hamas
By STEVEN ERLANGER- New York Times
Published: May 20, 2008
PARIS — France confirmed on Monday that it has had contacts with the leaders of Hamas for several months to try to better understand the positions of the radical Islamic group that is running Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh geez, I know where this is going to go and it's going to be maddeningly inane.

Posted by steve duncan | May 19, 2008 9:37 AM

I was going to buy Matthew's book until I read the following on the blog A Tiny Revolution. I'm kind of in agreement with Schwartz. I was quite unhappy with Matthew in the run up to the Iraq war and afer but he had rehabilitated his reputation somewhat with me in the last few years. But now, Matthew, you appear to be backsliding. What do you have to say in your own defense, Matthew?

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002254.html

"And because I dig Yglesias, I found this, from the beginning of his new book Heads in the Sand, to be discouraging:

[O]ne should avoid unwise extremes and hew to a soundly moderate course of action...
Unfortunately...though backed by the teachings of Aristotle, the Buddha, and Goldilocks alike, [this view] offers little in the way of practical guidance. In a world where one conservative author's proposed response to Islamic violence is to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" and a non-trivial number of people are committed to blanket pacifism, the middle ground turns out to be an extraordinarily broad patch of terrain.

To begin with, the ritualized execration of the Dirty Fucking Hippies is gross. But what's worse is that it's completely untrue that "a non-trivial number of people are committed to blanket pacifism." Or at least it is if words have any meaning."

Posted by The Fool | May 19, 2008 9:43 AM

One of the horrifying things about Bush's foreign and military policy is that is sometimes seems that politics is in command there too (As O'Neill and DiIulio said it was in economic and social-services policy). In other words, that strategies and tactics in Iraq / Afghanistan / Iran are calculated to appeal to the electorate. We know that even though Rove is primarily an election strategist, he played a major role in policy-making (ranking behind only Bush and Cheney in the hierarchy.) Since Rove's strategy since 2001 or so has been "mobilize the base", and since the Republican core is dominated by demented Armageddonists and World War Three advocates, the possibility of a sane foreign policy has become nil.

You also wonder whether Bush and Cheney don't believe their own slogans by now; i.e., whether they haven't simply become part from the core constituency. Sometimes it seems that their plan is to win the war with spin, buzz words, and photo-ops. (I've believed from the beginning that Guantanamo was primarily a giant photo-op showing toughness.)

On top of that is the Cheney theory that once a President is re-elected he should pay no attention at all to what the voters think. (The nice thing about this Cheney theory is that it may have destroyed the Republican Party, knock wood. Like Bill Clinton's, Bush's pesidency seems to have done his party no good.)

Posted by John Emerson | May 19, 2008 9:45 AM

Make France stop talking to Hitler!

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 9:45 AM

Better understand them?!?! But they're teh terrorists!

Posted by Adrock | May 19, 2008 9:57 AM

The Fool: I will offer this in Matt's defense--a large portion of the book is about the "the ritualized execration of the Dirty Fucking Hippies" and how damaging it has been. I think the only point to be drawn from that passage is that making policy decisions based on the fact that they are "moderate" provides no real guidance.

Posted by Leo | May 19, 2008 10:09 AM

Neocons are the kids who got beat up in school for being fat, slow and anti-social and never were able to effectively fight back.

Not knowing the histories of these characters, I don't know if this is true. I do have a problem, though, with vilifying people based on their social status in high school. It's my experience that the unpopular kids in high school generally turned out to be more decent people, with greater levels of empathy (born of personal experience) than the popular kids. Its generally the people who did the bullying then who are most likely to be bad people when they grow up.

For example, I'll bet you that Bush was just as repellent in high school as he is today.

Finally, imagine if the neocons were all cool kids in high school. Would that make it ok what they've done now?

The theme that "cool=good" has been a pet peeve of mine ever since the sitcom M.A.S.H., where every week the viewer was beat over the head with the idea that you're a good person if you're cool, and a bad person if you are not.

(As you may have guessed, I was not considered cool in high school).

Posted by Jim W | May 19, 2008 10:36 AM

It is almost enough to make one wonder what "truly conservative" means in a foreign policy context--could it possibly be that "truly conservative" and "hawkish and unilateralist" are not the same things?

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 10:40 AM

Jim W, I have much to say about your valid arguments, and you're missing the "toady" behavior of some neocons sucking up to the bullies, but in general I think we'd all be better off if we stopped criticizing various political sleazeballs by mocking their speculated social status in high school.

Posted by Tyro | May 19, 2008 10:43 AM

Leo: Well then maybe I'll buy the book anyway.

But as a non-pacifist who supported the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, I was more than a little pissed off to be constantly defending myself against the charge of pacifism because I figured out the Iraq War was based on a hoax and was not justifiable in the Just War sense of justifiable.

Schwarz is right that a lot of people who were too influenced by peer pressure (but not influenced enough by evidence and moral principle) are just a little too cozy with the idea that those who opposed Iraq did so out of knee-jerk opposition to all wars. The reality is a lot of us did the math and saw that it didn't add up, while a lot of others were jumping on the bandwagon that lead to 4000 dead Americans and a million dead Iraqis.

Boy do I sleep better at night knowing that no one can blame me for having contributed in any way at all to 4000 dead Americans and a million dead Iraqis.

Posted by The Fool | May 19, 2008 10:56 AM

Is it making fun of someone's personal social history or is it criticizing someone's vain macho posturing and hypocrisy when you point out that so many of the very same Serious Neo-Khans are talking about the thrills and dangers of war, the strength and courage we will need, the important lessons of martial culture, and all the rest of it, when they themselves have never subjected themselves to the rigors of even minimal military service that many of us not making such pompous, dangerous arguments have in fact done?

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 11:01 AM

"Appeasement" is a dumb word in this context but there's still an issue that needs to be clarified. Are high-level diplomatic negotiations (at the ministerial or executive level) warranted just to feel the other guy out? Obama's early statements seem to indicate that he thinks this is OK. Diplomatic SOP discourages this; an offer of a high level meeting usually signals that you're ready to concede something.

Is Obama prepared to offer concessions? If so, what? That might really be "appeasement." But if he's not willing to concede something, what does he have in mind? Diplomacy is not about "talking." It's about negotiating. It'd be nice if Obama clarified.

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | May 19, 2008 11:53 AM

Perhaps Obama knows of some ingenious argument that will persuade Iran they have been wrong all along? :)

Posted by JBT | May 19, 2008 12:07 PM

Honestly, whether or not there are any substantive results from a negotiation with Iran is really beside the point. So long as Obama is seen to be discussing the issues in good faith it will go a long way towards restoring the American reputation as honest dealers on the world stage and will give strength to moderates within Iran.

Posted by Leo | May 19, 2008 12:28 PM

"Not knowing the histories of these characters, I don't know if this is true. I do have a problem, though, with vilifying people based on their social status in high school. It's my experience that the unpopular kids in high school generally turned out to be more decent people, with greater levels of empathy (born of personal experience) than the popular kids. Its generally the people who did the bullying then who are most likely to be bad people when they grow up.

For example, I'll bet you that Bush was just as repellent in high school as he is today.

Finally, imagine if the neocons were all cool kids in high school. Would that make it ok what they've done now."

My greater point isn't so much the high school metaphor as that neoconservatism is simply a vessel through which one expresses ones overcompensation to cover one's own worries about one's masculinity, physical toughness and courage. It's a bit of a jump to equate "cool kids" = "bullies" or "the good kids." Sometimes the bullies are unpopular themselves, but when have you heard of a highly-committed neocon actually having a record in masculine achievement? Bush, after all, was a cheerleader. Now, there is nothing wrong with being a male cheerleader, being feminine, being picked on, etc.

However, the problem comes when one overcompensates for such a personal history by acting like an even greater asshole when they get older than even the bullies were in high school. I'm using this as a metaphor, but remember that Bush wasn't ideologically a neocon pre-9/11 as a blank slate. However, neocons do seem to be like the "toadies" Tyro mentions. They suck up to the bully, the guy in power, etc. to make themselves seem stronger. Strong and confident liberals like FDR don't go around picking fights abroad to compensate for things like being in a wheelchair, but fight the necessary fight. It's similar to how so many wimpy Democrats voted for the war even though they knew it was wrong but they were more worried about looking weak than doing the right thing.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:17 PM

""Appeasement" is a dumb word in this context but there's still an issue that needs to be clarified. Are high-level diplomatic negotiations (at the ministerial or executive level) warranted just to feel the other guy out? Obama's early statements seem to indicate that he thinks this is OK. Diplomatic SOP discourages this; an offer of a high level meeting usually signals that you're ready to concede something.

Is Obama prepared to offer concessions? If so, what? That might really be "appeasement." But if he's not willing to concede something, what does he have in mind? Diplomacy is not about "talking." It's about negotiating. It'd be nice if Obama clarified.

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | May 19, 2008 11:53 AM"

Usually I would agree with you, but we are at the point that in many countries people look at us on the one hand and Iran on the other and conclude we are both equally crazy. It's not only about sending a signal to Iran, but to the rest of the world as well that we are moving on and maturing from the Bush temper tantrum years. In addition, Obama doesn't have to concede anything he doesn't choose to concede just because that would conform to a theory. If we emerge from the talks with no progress made due to Iranian stubbornness or idiocy but are clear that we entered them in good faith, we win the PR campaign vis-a-vis Iran.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:30 PM

R-Man--

If we emerge from the talks with no progress made due to Iranian stubbornness or idiocy but are clear that we entered them in good faith, we win the PR campaign vis-a-vis Iran.

You've just made a cogent case for low-level or even back-channel talks, which everybody--even McCain--supports. Understand that the difference between deft diplomacy and utter ineptitude resides in how creative you get in your low-level contacts, not in your summits. You can get just as much international PR out of properly managed low-level stuff. Indeed, one of the sure-fire ways to screw up completely is to charge into high-level talks without having everything resolved.

Think Bush looked like in idiot when he went hat in hand to King Abdullah on oil production and got told to take a hike? Think Obama would look any better coming out of a meeting with Ahmadinejad?

As for sending a signal to the rest of the world, the rest of the world uses diplomatic conventions, too. Diplomacy is simply another language and, like all other languages, you can say embarrassing things if you don't know it idiomatcally. If Obama breaks the rules, he'll freak people out. Presumably he has professional diplomats on his staff that have explained all of this to him. But he (and we) would be better off if he didn't decide to turn what was obviously a rookie mistake into a foreign policy just because he said something stupid.

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | May 19, 2008 3:01 PM

You've just made a cogent case for low-level or even back-channel talks, which everybody--even McCain--supports.

I don't know about McCain, but I am pretty sure the Bush has been explicit about NOT supporting such things with Syria and Iran.

I am pretty confident that Obama is smart enough to figure out the "lagnauge of diplomacy." Certainly moreso than McCain, who can't figure out how to work with his own colleagues in the senate without decompensating into profanity-laced tirades.

Posted by Tyro | May 19, 2008 3:18 PM

Tyro--

...I am pretty sure the Bush has been explicit about NOT supporting such things with Syria and Iran.

By all accounts, we've got embassy-level contacts with the Iranians going on in Iraq all the time, and even more stuff being channeled through the Iraqi government. What do you think low-level talks look like? This kind of diplomacy doesn't take place under a big sign that reads, "low-level negotiations taking place here," you know.

Having said that, there's no question that the Bush Administration is horribly inept when it comes to this kind of diplomacy.

Certainly moreso than McCain, who can't figure out how to work with his own colleagues in the senate without decompensating into profanity-laced tirades.

And yet he's gotten more legislation through the Senate than Obama could dream of. How do you account for that? Perhaps you're using the wrong metric for judging an effective negotiator?

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | May 19, 2008 3:31 PM

"To begin with, the ritualized execration of the Dirty Fucking Hippies is gross. But what's worse is that it's completely untrue that "a non-trivial number of people are committed to blanket pacifism." Or at least it is if words have any meaning."

This is because Matt is actually a "liberal interventionist" - read "liberal hawk" - even though he's trying to pose as a "liberal internationalist".

In other words, he still thinks he was right on Iraq AT THE TIME. That is, listening to "Big Dog Democrats" who were war-mongers was OK back then in his mind. He still does it today.

Problem now is that he has the same position on Iran, but doesn't have the balls to discuss it here because it would make him look as stupid as he was on Iraq - plus it might make critics of his book more effective and hurt sales (not that it matters, last stats I saw here indicate the book has sold less than Ann Coulter's - to Democrats.)

As for Bush "diplomacy" on Iran, the whole Lebanese brouha was intended to put pressure on Iran. Bush and Israel intended to stage a coup in Lebanon - with the assistance of Israeli air strikes on Beirut - and crack down on Hizballah. That failed miserably when Hizballah found out about it - courtesy of either spies or their ability to crack Israeli communications - and moved first, sending the mercenaries their opposition had hired running and demonstrating with ease how they could have taken over the government by force - if they wanted to, which they didn't.

Then Bush counted on Saudi Arabia to chime in against Iran. Their Foreign Minister did - but as the facts came out, he lost credibility and the Saudi King has been forced to back off. See:

Saudis, US grapple with Iran challenge
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE17Ak02.html

It was a total victory for Hizballah and Iran, and another defeat for Bush and Israel. Both Bush and Israel are said to be furious, and their Lebanese proxies enraged because the US and Israel canceled the operation when it became clear it was doomed.

Bush has no intention of conducting any "diplomacy" with Iran, even over Iraq. The National Security Council has just signed off on a plan to attack alleged "insurgent camps" in Iran. Bush could give that order at any time. Naturally, this will cause Iran to ratchet up the pressure on the US military in Iraq, thus "justifying" more US attacks on Iran. If rumors in Washington reported by Jim Lobe are true, this will be followed up by a "massive" attack between November and the end of the year.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 19, 2008 6:24 PM