ACTUALLY BY DEAN BARNETT, THE NEW GUY

In his magnificent biography of Winston Churchill, “The Last Lion – Alone: 1932-1940,” William Manchester used the term “the catechism of appeasement” to describe the European powers’ irrational faith in their ability to appease Hitler.  In spite of Hitler’s belligerence and plainly evil objectives, the wise men of Europe labored at convincing themselves that their program of appeasing Hitler would be successful.

Regarding the Middle East right now, we have something similar – call it the catechism of a ceasefire.  There is nothing that suggests that Hezbollah or its state sponsors want any kind of lasting peace with either Israel or the United States.  But the cries for a ceasefire continue.  If only the bombs would stop falling, ceasefire proponents seem to argue, we could once again comfortably insert our heads into the sand and pretend all is well.

The fact that we would only defer the true day of reckoning to a later though likely bloodier date seems not to be a consideration.

IT WAS ACTUALLY TOUGHER for the Hitler than it is for the modern day Islamo-fascists.  Hitler had to occasionally offer some dishonest rhetoric suggesting that he was just attempting to restore a natural balance to things and really had no offensive designs on the rest of Europe.  Churchill understood Hitler’s half-hearted attempts to pose as a man of peace for what they were.  He famously referred to one of Hitler’s less bellicose speeches as “comfort for everyone on both sides of the Atlantic who wished to be humbugged.”

Alas, the Jihadists see no need to humbug us – we’re quite willing to humbug ourselves.  Blogger Atrios, a man at the intellectual vanguard of modern day liberalism (if such an intellectually exhausted movement can actually possess a phalanx worthy of the term “vanguard) wrote a revealing blog-post over the weekend.  Apparently provoked into silliness by a Glenn Reynolds post, Atrios declared, “I hope we’re never tested on what our actual response to nuclear terrorism is no matter who is to blame, both because I hope nuclear terrorism never happens to us and because I don’t really want to have to actually consider what the appropriate response to such an event would be.” 

(It’s not like Atrios didn’t get a good shot in at Reynolds.  Showing the sharp debating skills that can only be found at the highest levels of academia, Atrios slashed Reynolds with his rapier-like rhetoric, calling him the “Instawanker.”)

Far more important than Atrios’ chronic affection for juvenile insults is his intellectual cop-out.  It’s true that nuclear terrorism is a disquieting thing to contemplate.  But are we not better off contemplating such things ahead of time so we can act wisely if and when they do occur?  Perhaps Atrios is just copying a page out of some prominent Democrats’ playbook.  Maybe Ray Nagin once scribbled in his personal diary that he didn’t want to contemplate the horrors of the levies being breeched, let alone what he would do with all those school buses if such a thing occurred. 

And certainly the leaders of the Democratic Party have been mum on how to confront Radical Islam the past five years.  They seem to have reached a consensus on the fact that everything George W. Bush does, from the troop levels he fields in Iraq to how he parts his hair, is irretrievably mistaken.  And yet, similar to Atrios, they seem “reluctant to consider” how they would deal with this very real threat.  Or perhaps drunk on his own power as is the progressive blogger’s wont, Atrios feels that his refusal to consider nuclear terrorism will by some unidentified mechanism forestall the threat.

Atrios’ stand puts the Democratic Party and the left wing blogosphere (which still en masse refuses to even address Israel’s war) in stark relief.  They have become the party of
Scarlet O’Hara, twirling about their virtual Tara defiantly insisting that they will not contemplate the nation’s problems until some far-off tomorrow.

SUCH IS THE LOGIC THAT INSISTS ON AN IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.  After all, it’s tough to bounce about saying “twiddle-dee-dee” and focusing exclusively on Ned Lamont while Katyushas are falling by the hundreds on Northern Israel and the United Nations has worked itself into a lather over Israel’s purportedly disproportionate response.

Besides, a serious intellectual engagement with the Israel-Hezbollah war requires the contemplation of a whole host of downright unpleasant issues.  After all, Hezbollah did not produce the Katyushas that rain down on Israel.  Without their state sponsors, Hezbollah would not have these weapons.  Equally unpleasant is the fact that neither Hezbollah nor its state sponsors seem to have any interest in peace. 

True, a ceasefire will be a break in the action, but a break in the action to what end and to the benefit of what parties?  Or is such a question too unpleasant to consider?

PS - Thanks to everyone, and especially Hugh for having me here.  I'll try be worthy.  And if I do some stupid things like post the same the essay four times because I'm unusually maladroit working with new software, try to remember what a wonderful virtue patience is.

To Soxblog readers who complained that I didn't post enough, hear me now and believe me later - that's about to dramatically change.  And thanks for following me over here.