Daily Scold: Appeasing the security dilemma

Speaking before the Israeli parliament, George W. Bush denounced appeasement and compared current supporters of appeasement (he named no names, of course) to the likes of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to avert World War II by giving Hitler whatever he wanted (Google "Munich agreement" for extra credit). Bush said an unconditional offer for direct talks to leaders such as Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would amount to the same thing, or at least the same path. Now the Democrats had a field day, throwing what the The Weekly Standard called "the left's latest hissy fit," with Barack Obama leading the charge, blasting Bush for playing domestic politics overseas and for being plain wrong. John McCain shot right back, using Obama's name (Bush spokesmen repeatedly claimed that Bush did not aim his remarks at Obama or anyone in particular) directly, saying Obama "does not understand the world we live in."

But here's the problem: negotiation isn't appeasement. Appeasement is the part where you give the other guy the better deal, after you negotiate.

The Atlantic Monthly has characterized Obama's foreign-policy stance as being somewhat "accidental" -- that is to say, Obama blurted out his willingness to meet unconditionally with people like Iran's Ahmadinejad. There was no prior discussion.

Since then, Obama has put forth a forceful foreign policy statement that represents a significant departure from establishment Democratic thinking, which is basically, "talk as tough as the GOP or else you'll get owned by right-wing attacks saying you're too weak."

Obama rejects negotiations as a sign of weakness, quoting John F. Kennedy: "we should not negotiate out of fear, but we should also not fear to negotiate."

The conservatives say it's dangerous to talk to Ahmadinejad, or at the very least, meaningless. Iranian officials will proclaim a public relations victory and use the negotiations for domestic propaganda purposes, they say.

No, the better idea is to keep up the hardline approach. Prepare for the worst, don't engage directly, and make sure your demands are so high that the other side cannot possibly meet them without appearing to contradict their long-held position.

This is what I like to call the wrong answer to the security dilemma. The security dilemma is a concept in international relations that's relatively simple to understand: a bunch of nations want to be safe and secure. They don't want war. But they want to be protected, just in case. So they build up armies and weapons, invest large sums of money and effort into having the best military. After all, whoever's got the best military will be the best-prepared in case of enemy attack.

Simple, right? The problem is, the other nations feel the same way, and have reached the same conclusion. So what transpires is a three-way arms race between three nations that have no genuine desire for conflict. You can see how this situation might get out of hand. Angry statements are made by all sides as they accuse one another of warmongering by aggressively building up their military might.

The hardliners on each side say: "prepare for the worst, and don't trust anyone. Make sure your stick's the biggest." This continues the trap, forever fueling an escalating arms race AND fueling the cultural forces of fear, nationalism and hostility towards other nations. These cultural feelings are politically convenient, as they provide public will and support for continuing the military buildup.

Finally, there actually IS a desire on the part of one party to attack. Say preemptively, because one of the other nations has boosted its hostile rhetoric and now has a nuclear arsenal so powerful that, while there is no evidence it intends to attack, the only "smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud," to paraphrase George W. Bush.

This is merely a nightmarish hypothetical, of course -- Iran is years away from a working nuclear weapon that can strike U.S. soil. But adopting the sort of "don't talk, be tough, make them break first" attitude is exactly how you fall into the trap.

It's an easy trap to fall into, as it's easy to win public support for something that will "best prepare" the country in case of enemy attack. But I'd rather take my chances with the guy who's willing to bypass the trap entirely. Let's not forget that without last-minute dialogue and diplomacy, the Cuban Missile Crisis would've resulted in a nuclear conflagration whose radioactive embers would still glow brightly on the streets of Washington D.C. today.