Barone: Appeasement V. WOT

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
Which has been most effective late 20th/early 21st. C?


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/printmb20040712.shtml

excerpt
All of which is relevant to this year's presidential election. John Kerry has said that the war against terrorism is primarily a matter for law enforcement and intelligence. He recently ran an ad based on a book he wrote in 1997. But that book never mentioned Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden -- it was primarily about the danger of international organized crime.

And terrorists do turn to crime: The FARC finances its activities by drug trafficking, and one reason the paramilitaries won't give up their arms is that they make money by smuggling and drug trafficking, too.

It's impossible to know exactly what Kerry would do as president or what Bush would do in a second term. But Kerry seems far more inclined toward appeasement, as Clinton was.

Richard Holbrooke, who would like to be Kerry's secretary of state, notes that Clinton was cheered in Ireland for his "peace process," while Bush was greeted with angry demonstrations there. But the British cheered Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich with "peace in our time" in 1938. A year later, they thought very differently.

In the short run, appeasement seems the more conciliatory, thoughtful, nuanced way to deal with terrorists. But in the long run, it tends not to work.
 

Forum List

Back
Top