From Slate: Leave Hitler Out of It

Recently I read an interesting, though unapologetically biased, book about the differences between Europe and the US. The book is titled Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse Than You Think by former Defense Department Undersecretary Jed Babbin.

He explains a key moment in our nation’s history which set us apart from the Europeans. Think of the line in the Marine Corps hymn “…to the shores of Tripoli…”

Back in the early days of our country the Barbary Pirates were terrorizing the Mediterranean and eastern Pacific. These pirates were much less likable than the ones glamorized in today’s Disney movies – or the Veggie Tales movie The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything – a family favorite. They would attack any ship whose country hadn’t paid their sponsoring nations – Tunis, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco – a handsome ransom. Many European countries were paying, and the amount the US paid amounted to 20% of the government’s revenues. This resulted in the First and Second Barbary Wars – and the reestablishment of the US Navy. In this instance, Congress authorized deployment of ten ships to put an end to the payment of escalating ransoms and provide for freedom of the seas. One could say that the US ended a policy of appeasement and instead stood up to the bullies and came out victorious. This all in the infancy of our nation.

This is but one example of the instances Mr. Babbin points out other where the US and European countries were threatened by terrorists and responded in different ways. Certainly he couldn’t pass up the chance to mock Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement of Hitler.

That brings me to the title of this blog entry. In her article, Anne Applebaum asks us to stop identifying every bad guy as Hitler, ad anyone who wants to take a diplomatic approach toward them as Chamberlain.

“Invoking the Nazis also changes the tenor of a debate. There may be good, tactical reasons for choosing not to negotiate with Hezbollah or the Iranian regime, for example (the best reason, usually, is that the relevant diplomats are fairly sure that negotiations won’t work). But calling opponents of this policy “appeasers” distorts the debate, giving tactical choices a phony moral grounding. In reality, circumstances do change, even where “terrorists and radicals” are involved, as this administration in particular knows perfectly well.”

It is easy to fall for the bait when these tactics are used – especially when such a strong historical example stares us in the face.  However, it requires a firm mind in these difficult times to push through to clear debate.  I congratulate Ms. Applebaum on a courageous article.