Why is Appeasement So Popular?

After the experience with Hitler, appeasement got a bad name in foreign policy. But as we've seen, it has made a big comeback -- even if it isn't called by name (except by critics). What makes it so popular? I believe there are at least three main factors that explain why foreign policy leaders turn to appeasement.

Procrastination. When facing a difficult or seemingly intractable problem, putting it off as long as possible is a natural human impulse -- especially if the only obvious solution is unpleasant. Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow, because tomorrow you might not have to do it. That's the procrastinator's motto, and it applies to foreign policy as well as to personal life. Appeasement can be seen as a way to buy time and put off a difficult decision, while hoping that circumstances might change for the better. Unfortunately, the problems with procrastination are well known. Problems left unresolved tend to grow dangerously larger, and rather than changing for the better, circumstances are usually at least as likely to change for the worse.

Politics. Pretty much any foreign policy strategy is affected by politics, and appeasement is no different. For policy-makers, particularly in democratic states, politics is all about short-term solutions. Appeasement is very attractive politically. It can be sold to the public as a reasonable deal that prevents war or other hostilities. An appeasement deal might last for a few years -- an eternity in politics.  If a new administration is in charge when things go south, it can be blamed. It's very difficult politically to convince the public to go to war, take a stand that might result in war, or carry out other risky or otherwise unpleasant policies. Making a deal based on appeasement might be extremely foolish in the long-term, but that's not how it looks to many at the time.

Wishful Thinking/Self-Deception/Naivete. Most people, including foreign policy leaders, like to believe that others, even opponents, are essentially reasonable individuals. If people are treated with respect, listened to, their concerns taken into account, a peaceful resolution of differences should be possible. Many people see the world that way. This sort of thinking, which usually serves people well in being decent human beings in everyday life, is dangerously naive in terms of foreign policy. Different states can have radically different interests, and see the world in different ways.  And there are certain individuals who see a willingness to negotiate, or to grant concessions in the interests of deal-making as weakness to be exploited. Such individuals are all too common among political leaders, particularly in non-democratic states where those in charge often rule through fear & raw power. Pretending that such people can be reasoned with (let alone trusted)  as if they were an opposition political party in a democracy is simply a form of self-deception.

Procrastination, politics, and wishful thinking aren't going away, therefore there will always be leaders whose foreign policy impulses tend toward appeasement.

HOT5 Daily 10/3/2009

1. "The west loses the test of will" Unfortunately pretty accurate. Iran is the threat that it is not because the West is weak, but because it is largely spineless.

Representative Sample: somehow a worthless, sniveling pip-squeak like Iran has the worlds more powerful literally begging them to stop being naughty, they are all apparently on some sort of equal footing. All those missiles, guns, planes, bombs etc are all completely useless because the western world doesn't have the will to use any of them.

2. "Unemployment Graphic is a Bit Telling" Speaks for itself.

Representative Sample: This could be why people are laughing at the claim that the stimulus bill is buoying our economy.

3. "Smart Power! results may not be the same as implied or expected" We used to call it appeasement, now it's "smart power."

Representative Sample: Obama promised to meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea, “without preconditions”. And while much has been made about that promise, it seems that he forgot to tell the American people that he would also be happy to meet with them without expecting any real results either ! I guess the moving goalpost disclaimer was in the fine print

4. "Top Ten Reasons to Accept That Job Offer from David Letterman"Pretty good.

Representative Sample: 6. "Can Jay do this? Huh? Can Jay do this?"

5. "Mugged by Reality" Don't worry, the Obama administration isn't about to let reality interfere with its wishful thinking.

Representative Sample: it turns out George W. Bush didn't make the world the way it is. It turns out that bribes and threats and coercion just happen to be the most effective way to make those who are hostile to America's interests...less hostile. The only international organizations more corrupt than the International Olympic Committee would have to be found at the United Nation

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Racism Against Birds

Wildlife experts in Britain have upped the ante in the ongoing effort to render the word "racism" meaningless. Just when you thought misuse of the term couldn't get more ridiculous than the constant attempts by Obama supporters to label any criticism of the president racist, comes Dr. Ian Rotherham, Director of the Environmental Change Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University and his fellow experts. Reacting to an official designation of the ring-necked parakeet as a "pest" species, Rotherham had this to say,

"If there is a problem - for example with the birds taking fruit - then we have to take steps to deal with it. If you start to label it as alien then that is some sort of racism. Eco-xenophobia is the label I would use.

Since it's a foreign bird, labeling it as a pest, or actually noting that it is an alien species is a type of racism according to Rotherham. With this in mind it might be necessary to start an affirmative action program for the ring-necked parakeet and all other birds that are victims of racist discrimination. According to the report, it is now "possible to shoot the birds without a licence." This is an outrage! Because of racial profiling these parakeets are now subject to summary execution. It sounds like someone needs to bring a lawsuit against the UK on behalf of the oppressed and persecuted parakeets.

HOT5 Daily 10/2/2009

1. "Iran: So What?" A good roundup on the Iranian situation.

Representative Sample: Iran uses these talks to keep their enemies busy and confused. Iran has shown no sign of willingness to halt their nuclear weapons development program. The Iranians are certain that nothing can stop them.

2. "Fact Impact" An interesting experiment and its implications.

Representative Sample:The bigger picture, from Harris’s point of view, is that science urgently needs to get involved in the biggest questions of human existence—good, evil, morality, ethics, and what he calls “human well-being”—and not cede these to the religious sphere.

3. "Iran Is Really An A+ Adversary" More on a likely outcome of the Iran talks. It's not so much that the Iranians are skilled , but that our leaders are oriented toward appeasement.

Representative Sample: the end of year deadlines that Obama has been touting are now out the window (as have the rest of his deadlines). This also gives ammo to the US and EU to pressure Israel not to do anything, even if there is no actual cooperation by Iran (they can still hide uranium and weapons capabilities). On top of that, Iran is looking to get some quid pro quo

4. "Republicans Present Another Serious Alternative Health Care Plan" Which will be ignored by Democrats.

Representative Sample: “Contrary to what the president has tried to convince the American people of, while we oppose his misguided ideas, Republicans are committed to positive health reform. No one in Congress finds the status quo acceptable.”

5. "why big brother will always be watching" Some of the many reasons I laugh when someone goes on about a supposed "right" to privacy.

Representative Sample: Privacy is a very relative concept today. Whether we like it or not, we’re constantly watched by someone, many of things we do everyday are committed to some computer archive or a data bank, and government have laws that allow them to bypass warrants and parts of due process in the name of safety and national security. You aren’t just being paranoid. Somebody could very well be watching you. 

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Maybe He's Celebrating 60 Years of Communism in China

h/t Dr. Jim's Thinking Shop & Tea Room

Predicting the Results of Talks With Iran

With the pointless talks now underway regarding Iran's nuclear program, I came across an amusing article in Canada's National Post called, "Why can't America be tough, like France?" It says a lot -- and nothing good -- about the Obama administration, that such a title actually makes sense. Here's the best part of the article, the author's prediction for the negotiation results:

West: "Give up your nuclear program."

Iran: "No."

West: "Okay, how about if we impose some half-hearted, impossible-to-enforce sanctions on goods that China will keep selling you, anyway?"

Iran: "No." 

West: "Well......darn. Hmm. Let's break for lunch."

But that's actually a positive scenario. Here's another one that would be much worse:

West: Give up your nuclear program.

Iran: Ok, but we want this long list of concessions.

West: Great, we can make a deal. We have achieved peace in our time!

Iran: Takes concessions, continues working on nuclear weapons.

We already know that Iran can't be trusted to abide by any sort of agreement, so the best possible outcome of these talks would be a continued impasse. The last thing we need is the naive Obama administration actually agreeing to some sort of deal with Iran, which will strengthen the regime, and probably assist them in getting nuclear weapons even faster. A clear breakdown in the talks might force the administration to finally face reality.

HOT5 Daily 10/1/2009

1. "The stakes in Afghanistan go well beyond Afghanistan" Strategic implications.

Representative Sample: a U.S. decision to wash its hands of Afghanistan would send a different message to friends and competitors alike. It would hasten the emergence of a different kind of international order, one in which history no longer appeared to be on the side of the United States and its friends. Islamic extremism, rather than continuing to lose ground to the universal promise of democratic modernity, would gain new legs -- after all, Afghan Islamists would have defeated their second superpower in a generation.

2. "Accomodating Islam?" Accomodation or forcing religious beliefs and practices on non-believers?

Representative Sample: The issue here isn't respecting other religions, or helping minority groups make their way in the larger society, or being flexible to accommodate religious diversity. No, the issue here is remaking society to conform to the religious law of one particular faith. This is something new – and very troubling.

3. "Germany Sells, Delivers 2 More Dolphin Subs to Israel" The Israeli navy just got far stronger.

Representative Sample: Dolphin submarines are versatile and heavily-armed, with a wet and dry compartment for deploying underwater swimmers, and no less than 10 bow torpedo tubes. Four of the tubes have a 650mm diameter, which can launch larger cruise missiles, but are also useful for launching commandos in swimmer delivery vehicles (SDVs). The other 6×533mm tubes can launch STN Atlas Elektronik’s DM2A3 torpedoes or anti-ship missiles (likely Boeing’s UGM-86 Harpoons). Underwater mines offer another option.

4. "Atheism and Religious Beliefs Are NOT And Never Will Be On The Same Page" Makes some excellent points.

Representative Sample: When you think of it, every time believers use God to explain anything, they are making atheists’ case for us. And not to sound redundant, but think about it. Yeah, “it’s hard to believe in God,” but that’s exactly why you shouldn’t. Believing in God isn’t the opposite of believing in science. Science requires NO belief. It’s our best explanations of what we know under concrete definitions and testable conditions. 

5. "New Weapons Look And Act Strangely" Interesting avenues of weapon development.

Representative Sample: Scientists, engineers and technicians took an existing weapon, maintained the mass and logistical needs, and produced the 500-lb. BLU-126/B with an explosive footprint that can destroy a truck but not whatever is next to it.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.