In 1555, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V signed the Religious Peace of Augsburg, whereby he gave in to the newly Protestant princes of his most Catholic empire and permitted them and their subjects to practice Lutheranism. He thereby delayed by 63 years the onset of the Thirty Years War -- which eventually killed 30-40 percent of the entire German population in Europe, plus vast numbers of Spanish, Swedes, Danes, French, Dutch, Italian and others.
That act of "appeasement" certainly delayed, and -- but for some foolish diplomacy and bad luck in the early 1600s-- might well have avoided one of history's great calamities. Good Call, Charles V the Appeaser.
Both Charles V and Abe Lincoln were bold, aggressive statesmen. For them, appeasement wasn't a character trait, it was a specific policy judgment.
Giving in to the demands of others sometimes makes good sense. Throughout the 19th century, the British Empire was constantly appeasing minor potentates around the world in order to keep them off the warpath.
The questions today are: What constitutes appeasement of radical Islamists? And is it likely to make us safer?
Some of Bush's critics are quite straightforward appeasers (if not using that phrase). My friend Pat Buchanan and Michael Scheuer (former head of CIA's bin Laden unit and author of "Imperial Hubris") state that the reason bin Laden is attacking us is because of our foreign policy of supporting Israel and authoritarian Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They argue we should reverse those policies and thereby take ourselves out of the terrorist line of fire.
All those critics who say we should change our foreign policies because we are causing the Islamists to attack us are -- whether they use the term or not -- arguing to appease aggressors by changing ourselves in conformity with the aggressor's desires.
The politically correct crowd who say we should change the way we talk, think and behave, change our surveillance of Muslims, even here in America, because it offends Islamist sensibilities -- wish to gain safety by appeasing the violent and offended Islamists.
These arguments are not immoral or cowardly. If we could vouchsafe America from the danger of nuclear, biological and other mass slaughters of millions of our citizens, it would be reckless not to carefully consider such appeasements.
This is an issue of threat assessment. The appeasers don't see the threat as so great. Thus they think we are overreacting and even adding to the problem.
But for President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister Howard and (considerably lower on the food chain) me and millions of others, we are convinced that no amount of appeasement of the terrorists' desires will make us safer.
As I wrote in my book last year ("The West's Last Chance"), just as Hitler's Nazis, the radical Islamists are irreconcilable and unlimited in their goals. And, they are expanding their reach into the broad grass roots of Islam throughout the world (including in Europe and the United States).
A maximum effort to extirpate the malignancy is the only and best defense for our way of life.
I'm not against the appeasers because they are immoral or cowardly. I merely disagree with them because I believe that, like Neville Chamberlain, they underestimate the threat, and are thus dangerously wrong.
Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley, a conservative author and commentator who served as press secretary to Newt Gingrich during the 1990s, when Republicans took control of Congress, died Sunday January 8, 2012. He was 63.
Blankley, who had been suffering from stomach cancer, died Saturday night at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, his wife, Lynda Davis, said Sunday.
In his long career as a political operative and pundit, his most visible role was as a spokesman for and adviser to Gingrich from 1990 to 1997. Gingrich became House Speaker when Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives following the 1994 midterm elections.
©Creators Syndicate