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.