The real "appeasement" questions
Posted by: McQ
Dave Nalle comments on the Bush "appeasement" kerfuffle and Obama's reaction:
As Obama rides the mighty wave of enthusiasm into the Democratic nomination, I wonder why his supporters aren't more concerned about his ongoing display of what can only be described as a fatal level of naiveté and poor judgment born of inexperience which could well doom his campaign.
The latest example is his reaction to Bush's comments before the Israeli Knesset. Bush made a general comment, accusing 'some people' of naively leaning towards appeasement with terrorist regimes. Bush didn't mention the Democrats and didn't even make an oblique reference to Obama, though the media immediately jumped on the speech and turned it into an accusation against Obama. He could just as easily have been talking about the useless leaders of the European Union.
Obama could have wisely ignored the comment, or brushed it off with a comment about Bush's foolish warmongering, but instead he proved that he was as naive as Bush accused him of being by reacting in a defensive way which made it clear he assumed the comments were about him, and that he believed there were legitimate grounds for accusing him of being an appeaser. Even if Bush may have very well meant to target the Democrats or Obama with his comments, he didn't explicitly do so. Obama did that for him.
Nalle hits on what has puzzled me about the Obama reaction. Why react at all? By reacting, doesn't Obama necessarily admit to Bush's premise but argue it is false? Wouldn't the smarter political long-term move be to ignore it and not grant the premise legitimacy?
US News and World Report quotes Karl Rove about the politics of Obama's reply:
Karl Rove, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said he thinks Sen. Obama's response to Bush's remarks was "very smart politics" in the short term "meaning next Tuesday. ... Broader frame, going up to November, I'm not certain it's a smart move. If the argument is who's a better commander in chief, who's going to be tougher on foreign policy, then the answer is going to be John McCain."
The basic point to be made about "talks" is well made by, of all people, Thomas Friedman:
[T]he right question for the next president isn't whether we talk or don't talk. It's whether we have leverage or don't have leverage.
When you have leverage, talk. When you don't have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore.
So the question to be answered by Obama is, given his declaration that he will hold presidential level talks with no preconditions with terrorist regimes, what leverage will he take into them?
If, as I suspect, the answer is none, then why can't the planned talks be characterized as "appeasement", even if Bush wasn't specifically talking about Obama when he made the comment?
