My apologies for the slow blogging over the last few days. I ended up spending too much time at work and had too little sleep. Moreover, the work included a ridiculous amount of writing, so I felt rather written out. I don't understand how anybody can write for a living like that; here at the blog, I can write about pretty much whatever I want whenever I want, but I don't think I could do this as a job. But just writing is one thing. Writing well is even more difficult, and I have the greatest respect for those can pull it off on a regular basis (Lileks and Den Beste spring to mind, each in a completely different manner).

The BBC broadcast tonight The Gathering Storm, a biographical movie about Winston Churchill from 1934 to 1939 when he was the proverbial lone voice in the wilderness warning of the danger of Hitler's ascent to power. Based on the eponymous first volume of Churchill's own memoirs, it was a fascinating glimpse into the period. I don't know enough about British politics in the years preceding the war, so I can't judge its historical accuracy (nor have I read Churchill's memoirs; it's on my ever-growing reading list). What I found most remarkable that the BBC would actually even broadcast this, the story of the man who had fought against appeasement and who had been proven right. With the current situation in mind, it is hard not to draw parallels between then and now. The arguments in favor of appeasement are eerily similar to those we hear now and the film is full of excellent one-liners that apply today as well as they did back then about the folly appeasement. Churchill publicized the military build-up of Nazi Germany from documents he had obtained from sources in the Foreign Office and the military. These facts were known to the government at the time, but weren't acted upon (unless you count appeasement as action).

Appeasement was politically convenient for a number of reasons. The memories of the First World War were still fresh in people's minds and averting a repeat of those horrors was were much in people's minds. The economy wasn't doing too well either as it was still suffering from the aftermath of the great Wall Street crash and the worldwide depression that had both the US and Great Britain in its grip. Rearmament would have been expensive, but as not as expensive as fighting the Second World War. But the biggest reason for appeasement was the capacity for self-delusion that idealism brings about. It is the belief that no-one could possibly be as evil and bloodthirsty as Hitler's enemies made him out to be. As long as that belief is firmly entrenched in people's minds, the facts themselves matter very little. All such facts can be explained away. Initially at least, because it gets harder as time goes on. Was building the Luftwaffe (initially Britain was even supplying Rolls-Royce aircraft engines to the Germans for "civilian purposes") enough to conclude Hitler was up to no good? The retaking of the Rheinland? Annexing Austria? Usurping Czechoslovakia? Invading Poland? That's the one that did it.

Once a grand policy theme has been established it develops a logic of its own. Whether it be the supreme folly of appeasement or innocuous local policies, once you commit yourself to it, the policy starts to take over. It's the "just one more" syndrome of compulsive behavior. Building the Luftwaffe was no proof of Hitler's evil plans, was it? Well, perhaps taking the Rheinland was a bit provocative, but we are to blame as well for the harshness of the treaty of Versailles, so we need more appeasement, not less. And so it goes. On a smaller scale you see this happening every day, where the policy becomes a goal unto itself and hold the policymakers in a stranglehold. Admitting you're wrong is a hard thing to do.

But the policy of appeasement would not have been possible without the self-delusion of the British electorate which drove the mood at the time. This is a fundamental problem that emerges in all conflicts between the decent and the ruthless (using the terms loosely). If you grow up and live in a society where "decency" is the norm, it is hard to imagine a completely ruthless opponent. Instead, you try to bring to bear the tools of your "decent" society on the errant opponent, because cannot and will not believe that he is fundamentally evil. There must be some way to come to a compromise, surely? Not if one side does not want a compromise. And that was the achilles heel of British public opinion in the 1930's, which was fueled by the memories of the First World War. The thought having to rearm, even to prevent another war, was just too painful and scary to contemplate. So instead you believe that "peace in our time" is possible with "Herr Hitler." (Obvious parallels to current situation left as an exercise for the reader.)

Fortunately, the message of the failure of appeasement has been learned, even if imperfectly. The Cold War was one long repudiation of appeasement. The West, led by the United States stood up to the Evil Empire and won. The opposite of appeasement is not war, but it's the refusal to back down. We stood our ground in the Cold War with the threat of being absolutely prepared to go to war if necessary. And it worked. Now a new war has been thrust upon us by the Islamofascists. Could we have prevented it or foreseen it? With hindsight, yes.

We are also fortunate to have a President in this war who will not back down, who understands the failure of appeasement. Thus far, we have been winning the war by being steadfast in our resolve to pursue and destroy our enemies. The next one in line is Saddam Hussein, and I am confident the President will see to it that we are successful in removing him as well. We in the Anglosphere, if not the entire West, are now embarked yet again on a policy of non-appeasement. And that is as it should be.

Policy rigidity is a symptom not unique to appeasement. Just as appeasement captured its proponents in the 1930's, the opposite policy has the same danger. Non-appeasement does not mean using military force in every instance. Even though it is the right policy with regards to Iraq, it's not necessarily the right policy elsewhere. The other members of the Axis of Evil can be dealt with differently. The Iranian theocracy is beginning to collapse under its own unpopularity, and there's an even chance that the ayatollahs will no longer be in power a year from now. North Korea can be isolated and/or dealt with China's help. Each of our other enemies, be it the Saudis, Syrians, Palestinians or others will have to be dealt with in their own way. The Islamofascist hardcore will have to be defeated in each case, but other tools stand at our disposal as well. Avoiding capture by a logic of military action for everything. This means that at times we'll have phases in which it'll appear the war has stalled or lost its focus while other tools are being used to further our cause. (Of course, the war effort could stall and fail, but that would be apparent only afterward.)

We are at war. If we do nothing, our enemies will kill more of us, and will keep doing so until they achieve their dream of an Islamofascist Caliphate. That's their goal; one only needs to read their statements. But in pursuing this war, we will need to keep our bearings. This can only occur if there is cogent and realistic criticism of the pursuit of the war effort, and that has been spectacularly lacking. The so-called anti-war movement has never managed anything better than regurgitating puerile slogans and the same old anti-American propaganda again and again.

Our storm has gathered. It is upon us. Whether our ship will sink or float depends on how we react to the storm, each and every one of us. But doing nothing is not an option.