Mial On Appeasement: International, National, or Wisconsin?

I make it a point to read Richard Mial's opinions's in the La Crosse Tribune. When I saw the title of Sunday's piece, I knew it would be interesting.   Why is talking to adversaries regarded as ‘appeasement?’    

The problem with automatically denouncing the idea of engagement with adversaries is that, sooner or later, the United States will do it. That’s called diplomacy. During the Cold War, when the former Soviet Union was our sworn antagonist, U.S. officials regularly engaged the Soviets, at different times and on a variety of issues.

As I read the text, I realized that everything Mial wrote applies to Wisconsin legislators who insist upon impasse and a crisis until they ultimately talk. I can recall the story of a legislator of one party seen talking to a member of the other party as they walked around the square. The next day came a stern warning about 'fraternizing with the enemy,' and subtle threats about legislation and committee appoitments.

I am sure Mial would concur that the lessons of diplomacy apply in Madison as well as Washington. As he noted:

          Before we decide to invade somebody else, let’s try diplomacy and working with allies instead. 

Comments

[Brian]

But we're not good at diplomacy. Countries usually lead with their strengths. For the U.S. that would include, but not be limited to, economic coercion---John Perkins has written about the economic hitman policy we typically use; threats---and by the way, how come almost no one (except Chomsky) points out that the kinds of threats we issue to countries like Iran are violations of international law; and then, if that doesn't work sometimes CIA actions and history is littered with our destruction of governments around the world; then, as the last resort we go with invasion, none of them since WW II legal.

If we had to rely on diplomacy our elites wouldn't get their way. Other countries could enjoy the benefits of more of their own resources and more of their peoples would live to the age of adulthood and beyond. Our elites would have to make do with less. They can't accept that so must convince enough of us havenots that sophistries uttered by McCain, and, yes, Obama actually reflect reality.