Talking ain't appeasement 2!

George Bush's entrance into the 2008 presidential primary while speaking in Israel this week has shown him to be partisan to the core, and with John McCain jumping in to embrace the "talking equals appeasement" charge shows us where things are at in this election cycle.

Of course, both Bush and McCain seem to believe that angry rhetoric is more effective than serious negotiation. What is interesting is that Right Wing partisans have been using this "appeasement" charge for a very long time. As Peter Scoblic points out in an LA Times essay, the list of Presidents charged with being appeasers includes: Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK (all because they talked with Soviet leaders), Jimmy Carter, and even Ronald Reagan himself.

Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.

The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller,
John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)

Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?

Yes, even GW has shown that when we talk we get results -- see North Korea and Libya. Not talking to Iran and Syria hasn't accomplished much. Besides, didn't the Iraq study group report, a group that included Bush's current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, argue this same point. Consider:

3. Dealing with Iran and Syria

Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests.

Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.

The Study Group recognizes that U.S. relationships with Iran and Syria involve difficult issues that must be resolved.

Diplomatic talks should be extensive and substantive, and they will require a balancing of interests. The United States has diplomatic, economic, and military disincentives available in approaches to both Iran and Syria. However, the United States should also consider incentives to try to engage them constructively, much as it did successfully with Libya.

Some of the possible incentives to Iran, Syria, or both include:

i. An Iraq that does not disintegrate and destabilize its neighbors and the region.

ii. The continuing role of the United States in preventing the Taliban from destabilizing Afghanistan.

iii. Accession to international organizations, including the World Trade Organization.

iv. Prospects for enhanced diplomatic relations with the United States.

v. The prospect of a U.S. policy that emphasizes political and economic reforms instead of (as Iran now perceives it) advocating regime change.

vi. Prospects for a real, complete, and secure peace to be negotiated between Israel and Syria, with U.S. involvement as part of a broader initiative
on Arab-Israeli peace as outlined below.

John McCain has grandiose plans for victory in Iraq, plans that he says will take four years (making the Iraq war about 9 years in length -- did I hear the word quagmire?). But the people who sat down and mapped a way forward agree that negotiation needs to take place. So, who's the appeaser, Obama or Robert Gates (and James Baker)?