Cut & Run (Appeasement First) Theory

WARS are often lost on the home-front and not on the battle-field, and that may be starting to occur with respect to Iraq. Demands for American troop withdrawals have suddenly landed at the center of American politics. Republicans are looking nervously at the 2006 elections. Democrats sense that George Bush is vulnerable—and that Iraq offers the best and most logical way to paint him and the Republicans into a corner now that around half of all Americans regret invading Iraq, believe that we are doing more harm than good, and, accordingly, believe that the troops should come home.

Opponents of the war from Day-1 (now proponents of withdrawal) believed that a bullying, wrongheaded Bush administration saddled this nation with a war that capped off a period of terrible diplomatic failure and that the President failed so miserably at diplomacy that we were forced into war. I believe these Opponents/Proponents were and are dead wrong, but one thing is certain – every reasonable person should be able to agree that the argument about whether America should quit Iraq is not the same as the one about whether it should have gone there in the first place. For good orders sake, let us examine both of these premises starting with the theory that we should not have gone to Iraq in the first place – better known as the Cut & Run (Appeasement First) Theory. It would now appear that believers in this Theory may well win the day, i.e., the Iraq War could per se cost the Republicans one or both Houses of Congress in the November elections. So be it, but first let’s review a little ancient and not so ancient political history

CUT & RUN (APPEASEMENT FIRST) THEORY
Peace in Our Time??
As war approached in 1938/39, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said he would utilize all means in his power to avoid war, even if it meant the establishment of personal contact with dictators. Chamberlain got the opportunity to practice what he preached – i.e., give peace (at any price) a chance -- with respect to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s plan to annex the German speaking portion of Czechoslovakia. On September 30, 1938, Chamberlain signed with Hitler the Munich Pact which Chamberlain claimed brought "peace with honor", and yes, "peace in our time." In justification for his action, Chamberlain uttered the following gem, "....how horrible, fantastic, incredible it was that we should be digging ditches and trying on gas masks here (Britain) because of a quarrel in a faraway country (Czechoslovakia) between people of whom we know nothing."

In reality, the Munich Pact handed all of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany and was the prelude to war. On September 1, 1939, fifty-three German army divisions rolled into Poland, and World War II was off to a running start. So much for "peace in our time."

What about our French friends – the first nation to actually put into practice the Cut & Run (Appeasement First) Theory in an effort to pacify Hitler. On March 7, 1936, a token force of 3,000 German troops marched across the Rhine bridges at dawn and entered the demilitarized zone with orders to withdraw in the event of likely military confrontation with the French. Notwithstanding their right by treaty to intervene and block Hitler’s move to remilitarize the Rhineland, the French did nothing when in reality one French division would have been sufficient to terminate Hitler’s adventure. Hitler later admitted that if the French had marched into the Rhineland, he would have had to pull back the troops with their tails between their legs (mit Schimpf und Schande/with insult and dishonor). Such a move by the French could have been a fatal political blow for Hitler. But instead, Hitler was given room to breathe which led to the annexation of Austria in early 1938, the Munich Pact (late 1938), World War II (1939-45) and the German occupation of France (1940-44). Again, so much for "peace in our time."

And what about the good old USofA vis-à-vis World War II. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Hitler’s foolish declaration of war a few days later to drag us kicking and screaming into what may have been the only just war in the history of mankind, and, as the ultimate example of the Cut & Run (Appeasement First) Theory, after winning a total victory in that War by May of 1945, we in effect handed over half of Germany and all of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, and the Cold War was off and running. But we didn’t stop there -- we also applied the Cut & Run Theory to the Hungarian revolt of 1956 when the Hungarians attempted, at our urging, to free their country from its Soviet occupiers only to find that we would not assist them beyond a few hollow words. And then there is South Vietnam where our Cut & Run policy resulted in the collapse of the country, 2 million refugees, 65,000 executions and 250,000 people sent to re-education camps. So much for “Peace in Our Time.”

We never seem to grasp that those of us who ignore history are most probably doomed to relive it!! With respect to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, I have no doubt that history of a most odious nature would ultimately have been repeated had we allowed the continued existence of yet another horrific regime controlled by yet another brutal dictator – an evil person with evil intent who would have been a constant threat to his neighbors (and beyond) and who had in the past used weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against his own people and would sooner or later have found a way to again control and utilize such weapons (directly or via terrorists and other surrogates). Simply put, he had to go, whatever the reason – real or imagined, WMDs or no WMDs. We tried the Cut & Run (Appeasement First) Theory vis-à-vis Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991, and with Saddam still in control of Iraq it was a miserable failure.

CUT & RUN (APPEASEMENT FIRST) THEORY
Withdrawal Now or Stay the Course??
I believe it would be disastrous for America to again hastily retreat from Iraq as we did in 1991. That said, the following list of failures certainly does raise serious questions about the administration's ability to make Iraq work—now or ever: 1st) the Bush team over-sold the war based almost solely on WMD’s instead of the need for regime change as the number one priority with or without the issue of WMD’s, 2nd) neglected post-invasion planning, 3rd) never committed enough troops for the job, 4th) the deceptively attractive but fallacious link which the administration claimed existed between Iraq and the terrorists in order to justify going to wardoes in fact now exist, 5th) over two years after the President stood under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”, the insurgency is as strong as ever and around 2,500 Americans, 4,000 Iraqi troops, 30,000 Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Iraqi insurgents have lost their lives, 6th) and finally, the President’s refusal to replace the people responsible for this mess, especially those among his chief military and intelligence advisers.

But disappointment, even on this scale, does not justify or add up to a premature withdrawal and the following must certainly be taken into account: 1st) most of the insurgents' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers, 2nd) there are still not enough American troops, not too many, 3rd) the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet, but hand over more duties to them and the new Government as soon as possible thus permitting American and other coalition troops to withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis, 4th) American troop numbers should fall, but that should occur because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker, 5th) a fixed timetable should be avoided as that would only embolden the insurgents.

It is ironic that the demands for withdrawal of U.S. forces did not spring from any particular recent bad news from Iraq (there has been very little) – in fact the most recent news is promising. American strategy is improving (FINALLY) and the prospects for success are better than ever. The Bush administration has had no monopoly on shortsightedness. The proponents of a “cut and run” strategy are correct that the cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself “peace in our time” inasmuch as the terrorists have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory and those Arabs who want to modernize and democratize the Middle East would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.

America must stay the course because the consequences of withdrawing would be too terrible. The road ahead will be costly in terms of both troops and money, but this is not the time to cut and run. LET’S NOT SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY!!! I believe the current British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was right on point in his powerful speech to the U.S.. Congress on July 18, 2003, when he said the following:
“As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but in fact, it is transient. The question is, what do you leave behind? And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty. That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds. And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage. We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind -- black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent -- to be free -- free to raise a family in love and hope; free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts; free not to bend your knee to any man in fear; free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.That's what we're fighting for, and it's a battle worth fighting. And I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country …..there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR & BEYOND
I was born, raised and educated in the Midwestern United States (“The Heartland”), and DIOGENES (the Younger), is my nom de plume. Before embarking on a literary career as a writer/editor, I was (chronologically) engaged in the private practice of law in Chicago; a trial attorney in Chicago with the U.S government agency engaged in the prosecution of securities fraud; counsel in Washington, D.C. with the U.S government agency engaged in the promotion and funding of U.S. exports including the secret financing of covert military exports in conjunction with the Defense Department and the CIA; partner in a major Wall Street investment banking firm based in Paris and New York City; and, an independent investment banking consultant. Why the nom de plume and why DIOGENES (the Younger)? It is said of DIOGENES (the Elder) (c412-323BC) that throughout his life he searched with a lantern in the daylight for an honest man. And though Diogenes apparently did not find such a man, he had, in the process, exposed the vanity and selfishness of man kind. Over my long and varied career in the private and public sectors I have carried on my namesake’s thankless task of seeking the proverbial honest man (or woman) among the sharp cookies, nut jobs, hustlers and wheeler-dealers with whom I have come in contact – a task at which I have to date failed and, accordingly, I have anonymously (for privacy purposes and a tad bit of perversity) dabbled in my writings with political satire noir – with a conservative thrust – to make a case that the world (or at least the USofA) keeps trying to go to Hell in the Devil’s hand basket!!