George Santayana is among those quoted as saying something concerning, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Well, there seem to be many in Washington, DC (Republicans and Democrats alike), who failed their history classes. President Obama may well replace Neville Chamberlain (British Prime Minister just prior to World War II) as the poster child for poor scholarship. With a long string of acts of appeasement (does anyone in Washington have a clue what the word, “appeasement” means?), Obama is taking the word and its meaning to new heights. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, appeasement means to “pacify, conciliate, and to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.”The latest appeasement incident, in a long string of political miscues emanating from our Nation’s Capital, involves the pending Iranian nuclear deal. After more than a decade of Iran’s snubbing of U.N. and Western demands to curtail the development of its nuclear power base and subject itself to monitoring and inspections, and after feigned U.S. economic threats that did not make Tehran capitulate, this administration became hell-bent on getting a nuclear deal at any cost. I am almost 110% certain that Congress will be asked to approve the Iranian nuclear deal and then, and only then, will they really be allowed to fully understand what’s in it. No apologies to Nancy Pelosi here.
A decade ago, Iran had a fledgling nuclear program. Now, they are close to having nuclear weapons. And based on news reports for the past month or so, Iran demanded and the U.S. and the other superpowers said, that’s okay, over and over again. It’s actually been that way for more than a decade. It is not unlike making threat to a misbehaving child and then not delivering any consequences.
This deal comes on the heels of normalizing relations with Cuba, even though Cuba hasn’t done anything to address U.S. retributions and concerns. The beat continues with unanswered Russian aggression in the Ukraine and Chinese attacks on U.S. corporations in its country and alleged cyber attacks here.
But, perhaps the greatest and, most significant, act of appeasement has been this Nation’s failure to see ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) for what it really is. My reference to Chamberlain and World War II earlier in this writing was intentional.
Chamberlain is well-known for his appeasement to Hitler. The German leader took groups, religious and other, who didn’t fit his mold of a true German, and used various means (intimidation, scorn, imprisonment and execution) to rid the new Germany of these so-called “undesirables.” ISIS’ beheadings, kidnappings and other heinous acts are no different from what Hitler and his cronies did 70 years ago. This time, it is the Christians and other non-believers to “Sharia Law” who are being subjected to religious persecution, not the Jews.
As the U.S. makes insignificant and sporadic bombing runs on ISIS targets, ISIS continues to gain followers and grow the territory under its control. Much like Hitler in the early days, the threat was small. Then the threat got very large, very quickly.
However, there are two differences between Hitler and ISIS. Hitler needed oil; ISIS is starting to control it. Hitler, just wanted Europe and nearby areas. ISIS has already committed itself to destroying Western civilization.
Still, one could argue that appeasement is better than war. Writing at slate.com (Sept. 2013), Nick Baumann makes the case that “Chamberlain was right” in appeasing Hitler pre-1940. Given the ill-equipped military position in which England found itself, Prime Minister Chamberlain had no choice but to delay any type of war actions. Could this be the U.S.’ plan – to delay until ready?
I don’t think so. Rather than learn from England’s poor state of military readiness in the 1930’s, the U.S. government is planning to cut its military further (40,000 army positions during the next two years). What is wrong with this picture, given historical context? Maybe Hillary Clinton will chime in with, “what difference does it make,” here.
The list of historical miscues is long (I have only touched the surface here) and getting longer by the day. For political expendience, “good press,” and a false sense of making the world safer, our president, Congress, and other leaders in the U.S. and abroad are making some very bad choices.
History will surely repeat itself and those of us in the wake of a very badly steered national ship of state are doomed to experience it.
I hope that someone in the mainstream media will see the parallels between what happened 70 years ago and what is happening today. Our Nation, as a whole, needs to wake up to the real threats around it and act decisively…now, not later!
Originally published 7/14/15 at examiner.com; republished here 5/30/16