Ludicrous Historical Analogies

Many polemics (i.e. extremists) on the right like to point to Neville Chamberlain and his "Peace in our Time" attitude with Hitler's repeated territorial land grabs. Chamberlain naively believed Hitler didn't have further aspirations, or that by giving him what he wanted in Czechoslovakia, his demands would be 'appeased.' This is the genesis of the term appeasement in current political parlance. Of course, many on the right also fail to remember that it was Chamberlain who told Hitler point blank that any expansionist attempts on Poland would result in war. The danger point, and war, were realized because Hitler didn't think Chamberlain was serious. He was of course, and on Sept 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany, after Germany had invaded Poland, igniting World War II.

This scenario is used by the ignorant to expound and draw similarities to any discussion with current totalitarians like Assad (of Syria) or Ahmadinejad (of Iran). Really, they pretty consistently use this line of argument regarding discussions with ANY leader they would rather take military action against. The problem is, this analogy is nonsense and basely simplistic.

First of course, Syria and Iran are military midgets, incapable of the kind of damage German would soon thereafter bring about. Britain and Germany were relative military peers, with Germany being the more powerful aggressor.

Second, none of the nations the extremists point to have been expansionist or militarily aggressive.

Third, and most importantly, no one has for a moment suggested allowing Iran or Syria to take lands as some sort of 'salve' to their territorial demands. Even if we expand the discussion into including all of the militant Sunni movement (which excludes Iran), there is NO talk about 'allowing' such militants any sort of compromise regarding their outrageous and totally unacceptable aim of instituting an Islamic theocracy anywhere and everywhere they have anything like a meaningful level of population.

Discussions with the leaders of nations which do not subscribe to this extremism isn't anything like 'appeasement', such comments are ignorant or worse, desiring to mislead and confuse the public into NOT allowing for talk, for the peaceful avoidance of conflict, by incorrectly conferring the aims of Wahabism upon Syria or Iran and/or saying either or both are interested in taking over the areas they border. While Iran can be said to be interested in dominating the politics of Iraq and to a lesser extent, Lebanon, how exactly is that different than Israel's desire to influence politics in Lebanon by arming the Lebanese Christian militias, or invading southern Lebanon in the 1980's? Should we have accused the Israelis of being 'Hitler-esque'? Clearly such accusations would have been profoundly insulting, not to mention wrong. Refusing to talk about the problems faced by the Palestinians with Iran, with Syria, with Saudi Arabia, in a larger context of the future of the region, is asininely foolish. Iran is the major Shiaa power-broker in the region. It's desires matter. It would be no less or more foolish than refusing to talk with Israel. Each country in the region has it's own aims, seeks to influence policy and politics in its neighbors, just like we do. In fact, probably the best thing, is for us to let those countries govern locally, i.e. as we so often say we believe in.

Finally, it would be inconceivably dishonest to suggest the United States would stand by while Iran or Syria took military action to take territory not rightfully theirs. Beyond that, no one for a moment intends to allow Iran to control Lebanon. Not us, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia. Any such attempt would and will be met with a forceful response.

The extremists go further, though, and suggest ANY discussion equates to Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler prior to the permission of "Lebensraum." It's infantile, it suggests that any diplomacy is equivalent to caving in, and worse, and far more dangerous, it suggests that diplomacy is an unacceptable course of action. It hasn't been, even for the neo-cons - who were more than happy to claim the victories achieved through discussion with Libya - but instead is being used to demean and debase the discussion to the point that 'sound bite' logic is the only logic they'll allow anyone else. In short, they are so much more interested in winning than progress, they'll turn truly important issues into idiocy, and risk military conflict simply for political gain.

The contrast to the time of Chamberlain probably could hardly be less accurate - the powers involved are manifestly different, the aims largely different, and the willingness to abide imperialist expansionist utterly different.

Yet, there is a point here that in fact IS seemingly more accurate - and it comes from Chamberlain. Chamberlain didn't exist in a vacuum, he was part of a continuum of thought regarding the injustices that came out of World War I. In fact, World War II really was caused by World War I, and the injustices inflicted upon the losers by the winners (at least in Europe). The far better analogy to today, is that of Versailles.

Chamberlain represented an attitude, a realization, that the excesses of Versailles led to privation in Germany, profound poverty that lead to the ascendancy of fascism. The feeling was that Germany's territorial desires met with the ideals of Woodrow Wilson - the concept that peoples of similar ethnic background should live together - ideals which had been ignored entirely at Versailles. Chamberlain acted in agreement with the idea that perhaps by allowing the German peoples of Austria and Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland (a primarily Germanic region) - to join with Germany, the German's would be satisfied. It was a foolish attempt to placate an extremist borne of prior historical injustice.

The truth is we face a similar crossroads as we faced at the end of World War I, not what we faced at the start of World War II. At the end of World War I, the world's then superpowers, the US, Britain, and France, dismantled the Ottoman Empire, and carved up the Middle East in our own images - or desires. Kuwait was formed by the Brits, in part to have access to oil, France took Iraq, the Brits Palestine, we became friendly with Saudi Arabia.

The consequences of that imperialism are still felt today. Iraq was a cobbled together nation with a Kurdish ethnic minority that wanted their own nation - to the anger and complete opposition of the Turks and Persians (Iranians). Kuwait was a care-out from an historical nation similar to Iraq, which the ethnic 'Iraqis' long claimed was unjust, until the invasion in 1991 showed just how strongly they felt.

Now we are the super-power, carving out permanent bases in Iraq, without the permission of, and really in defiance of, the people of Iraq. We do it to intimidate Syria and Iran. We refuse any demand, request, requirement of either nation, and instead cajole and threaten them over and over again. We stand idly by while Israel threatens to bomb Iran for what is now well documented is NOT a nuclear weapons program - but even if it were (and it's not) - is in fact Iran's legal right to pursue, no less than it was Israel's. We tell the Arab nations of the Middle East their citizens don't have the right of protection from military aggression which we SAY that, on behalf of Israel, is one of our main reasons for being in Iraq - to protect Israel from terrorism, and bring to heal those states which sponsor anti-Israeli terrorism. In short, we tell the Arabs they don't deserve the same rights or protections which Israel does.

Israel tells Syria that the Golan Heights, a parcel of land no longer all that strategically significant, and which Israel makes no legal claim to, will effectively NEVER be returned to Syria. It is the most important thing to Syria - families are torn apart like German families were with the Berlin wall - since 1972.

In short, we are operating from a position of dominance (us and Israel), and basically saying, because we are powerful, we can do whatever we like. We will be respectful with Arabs who agree with us, but refuse to even talk to those who disagree with us. In short, we are repeating the mistakes of Versailles. Rather than looking for a just outcome in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we reflexively back ANY action - even foolish ones - Israel may take. We do little to nothing to request and require Israel to offer an economic future to the Palestinians - the one thing which will end the strife - in essence, we tell them it's perfectly fine to engage in the same kind of excess that economically ruined Germany. Are we truly surprised that the outcome is Palestinian extremism?

In the case of Iraq, unemployment exceeds 70% still, power is off 23 of 24 hours a day in Baghdad. The successes in tamping down violence have come at the expense of putting up 12 foot high cement barriers dividing neighborhoods, and loved ones, from each other, and having 14-15 hour curfews every day, sometimes 24 hour curfews. Police-state heavy-handedness has been what brought about the successes, as they usually DO - but when they end - then what? If they don't, do we think we can simply operate a totalitarian state for the foreseeable future - if we do, what then of our claims of democracy. More than that, if we insist on staying in Iraq, despite the overwhelming desire of Iraqis that we leave, have we not simply inflicted our will upon Iraq? What level of justice does this represent?

The upshot is simply this, if we do not act in a way which is fair, which is just, we invite the same calamity as followed World War I, we invite and provide justification for extremists, not the other way around, and just like Chamberlain was not a start, but an end, of the continuum of injustices leading to foolish attempts at cure, we will see a Middle East in 20 years or 50 years, awash in violence attempting to take an eye back for the eyes we take today. The land of Hammurabi will, once again, revert to the avenue of justice that leaves everyone maimed and blind.