Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
John McCain seems to be rewriting history just a bit with this comment:
"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''
Uh.....John.....have you forgotten that Reagan not only negotiated with the Iranians, he sold them weapons? It was a minor little thing called the Iran-Contra scandal, you might have heard of it. Perhaps you don't recall that the whole thing began as an attempt to ply "moderate" Iranians into pressuring Hezbollah to release six American hostages. Not only did Reagan "negotiate with terrorists", he actually traded arms for hostages.
And while we're at it, let's talk about all this ignorant blather we hear from Bush apologists about how withdrawing from Iraq would be "cutting and running" and how their hero Ronald Reagan would never have done that. On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber attacked US military barracks in Lebanon killing 241 servicemen. Reagan immediately pledged to keep US military in Lebanon. Vice President Bush declared that the US "would not be cowed by terrorists." Caspar Weinberger said there would be no change in American policy.
Right. In reality, Reagan did nothing to retaliate for those attacks and on February 23, 1984, he ordered the Marines to withdraw from Lebanon completely. So much for this ridiculous myth that Reagan was a warrior who would never settle for "appeasement" or retreat.
Politics
Comments
Ed, have we gotten our dates wrong?
Posted by: little peanut | May 17, 2008 9:50 AM
off by a tiny bit - the order was Feb 7th, the order completed on Feb 24th. in other words, negligible.
that didn't mean there weren't some retaliations. They moved in a troop carrier off-shore, and any time it or the U.S.S. New Jersey were targeted, the Jersey fired back with its full 16 inchers, including support fire during the withdrawal...
...not that everything they hit was "terrorist", of course. The Syrians were not amused.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | May 17, 2008 10:08 AM
I think the real issue with "appeasement" is that Reagan actually did want peace, but from a position of strength. The attitude was that only by making the other side realize they couldn't win against us would they back down solely on our terms. A few tactical strikes (Lybia, Grenada) was usually enough.
Sometimes, like with SDI, he bluffed and it worked. In spite of the "terrorist" threat, he (and most) at the time still considered the Soviet Union and "communism", that catch-all word at the time, the real enemy so any move that allowed the military to stay focused on them (such as appeasing Iran and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan) was considered a good one.
By contrast, the ones who condemn "appeasement" today are the ones who realize we are in a position of weakness, thanks to the failures of this administration both domestically and diplomatically. They presume, and intend to convince the media and the electorate, that we can't negotiate without giving up more to the enemy than they deserve, because we are weak and the enemy knows that.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | May 17, 2008 10:18 AM
I recall the US providing funds and weaponry to the Taliban (which actions certainly contributed to the deaths of thousands of Russian occupiers). So apparently the key to this argument is simply defining those with whom you deal as non-terrorist.
Posted by: carey | May 17, 2008 10:20 AM
Wow, they were there for 21 years and you call it cutting and running? Troop withdrawal orders from the grave? OK, cheap shot, its a typo error.
Lebanon was also, in large part, the motivation for the invasion of Grenada. Reagan wanted a "win" and the overthrow/murder of Maurice Bishop, coming on the coattails of the Lebanon embarrassment, was an easy win, shifted attention away from Lebanon, and was milked for a ton of propaganda by the Reagan admin. The airport in Grenada has a large plaque that thanks the Canadians and Cubans for helping in its construction, I couldn't find one that mentioned the US (at the airport, there are other sites on the island that discuss the invasion, and from my few conversations, residents remain divided over it).
Posted by: David Worthington | May 17, 2008 10:22 AM
Wait. . .Regan was still giving orders in 2004?
Didn't he start with the Alzheimer's in, like, 1994 or so?
Actually, this would explain a lot.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | May 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Worshippers of Reagan must be worshipping a different Reagan. Somebody who happens to have exactly the same name as and look identical to America's 40th president. Their Reagan and the 40th president simply have too many differences to be the same person.
I believe little peanut is referring to the year.
Posted by: tincture | May 17, 2008 10:25 AM
I see that now. missed it in reading it 'cause i was looking just at month/day. Cognitive Daily might have something to say on that. :)
Posted by: Joe Shelby | May 17, 2008 10:32 AM
7 - 24 Feb 1984. Us troops withdraw from Lebanon. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 10:42 AM
Ronald Reagan, ah, yes, I remember now -- Ronald Reagan's Freedom Fighters.
Posted by: Snarly Old Fart | May 17, 2008 10:45 AM
If neither Reagan nor Ollie Off-Scott-Free could remember the event during testimony, why should we expect McCain to?
Posted by: rpsms | May 17, 2008 12:47 PM
Yes, Chamberlain's cession of the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany was a shameful example of appeasement.
What McCain and others who are so quick to cite this forget is that Chamberlain also continued the British programme of re-armamment and it was he who declared war on Germany in September 1939, albeit reluctantly, not Churchill.
Another point for bellicose Americans to remember is that, although Britain and France combined were more powerful than Germany - on paper, at least - The United Kingdom alone was not. And in 1939 it was no longer able to draw on the resources of an Empire in the way it had been in 1914. Now, name one enemy on whom an American president has declared war since the War of 1812 that has been the equal of - let alone superior to - the United States economically, industrially and militarily.
Chamberlain was well aware of Britain's relative weakness and the deficiencies of her armed forces, yet he was prepared to step up and take on the Nazis. Yes, he was an unsuccessful appeaser and hated war but he was no armchair bombast and he was no coward.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | May 17, 2008 12:53 PM
Yes, obviously I meant 1984, not 2004.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2008 1:05 PM
It also seems certain that Reagan promised the Iranians, pre-election, to provide them with weapons and spare parts if they held the hostages until after he was inaugurated.
BTW, the thing about Grenada and the airport that got me was the way the media, and therefore the American public, accepted the Orwellian rewriting of history within weeks after the invasion. A huge part of the supposed reason for the invasion was that the airport was too big for the island's commercial jets and tourism needs and could only be needed for military use (in other words, the Cubans were building it for the Ruskies). With a week or two after the invasion was over the administration turned 180 and announced that finishing the airport was vital for the island's commercial/tourism needs. And the media didn't question the change.
Posted by: QrazyQat | May 17, 2008 1:07 PM
The thing is, Reagan got the Lebanon thing right. Those troops shouldn't have been there in the first place. The choices were retaliate and escalate or retreat. What purpose were our troops serving there? Not much of one. Retreat (yes, I said it) was the right answer.
Trading arms for hostages was probably not the way to do it, especially the shady way the administration did it. But some sort of appeasement was necessary in that case. The Iranians had us by the balls at that point. The US was stupid and clumsy in the way they allowed the embassy to come under siege and the Americans to become hostages. They had already "won" at that point. There was no sense in escalating the conflict. Appease them, be embarrassed, learn from your mistakes, and get on with life. Any other way would have led to unnecessary bloodshed.
I know this isn't PC but in some cases retreat and/or appeasement is the right answer, especially when you are meddling in some other nation's affairs and then they catch you with your pants down. The lesson is to not be in that situation in the first place.
Posted by: J | May 17, 2008 1:28 PM
Hmmmm...the Confederate south President Jeff Davis, who's assertion of independance in his inauguration speech and indeed the very fact of inauguration can be seen a declaration of war against the more powerful North.
OK, I'm stretching.
Anyway, wasn't it Lincoln who said that talking to your enemies and making them your friends is the best way to destroy them?
Posted by: Dave S. | May 17, 2008 1:30 PM
Hmm, does it qualify as the United States declaring war on an equal when the United States declares war on itself? That is pretty darn zen right there.
Posted by: Coin | May 17, 2008 2:01 PM
What's more, Reagan called it a "stategic redeployment."
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | May 17, 2008 2:24 PM
American Civil War (1860-5) let's see 2.2 Million Federals verses 1.084 Million Rebels. Yep no advantage to one side or another there. (figures courtesy of the ultra reliable Wikipedia). (/sarcasm) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 2:34 PM
Um, isn't part of the Legend of Reagan (hallowed be his name) that he undertook intense and prolonged negotiations with the "Evil Empire"?
Posted by: Dave Snyder | May 17, 2008 2:37 PM
And that's different from Iraq how?
But you're right, J, sometimes retreat is the right thing to do, sometimes "I don't know" is the correct answer
Posted by: BaldApe | May 17, 2008 2:47 PM
In fact, it was Jimmy Carter who negotiated the release of the hostages with Iran. They were released on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. He had no role whatever in their release.
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Everyone ignores the timing of the hostage release. Reagan had nothing to do with it. The hostages were released one hour after Reagan took the oath of office, and the timing was intended to humiliate Carter. Period. It was purely a symbolic gesture on the part of the captors. Reagan neither threatened, nor cajoled, nor talked to them.
The claim of McCain's that Reagan swaggered hard enough to intimidate the mullahs into releasing the hostages is specious on its face.
Posted by: Karoli | May 17, 2008 3:18 PM
Spedding: Yes, Chamberlain's cession of the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany was a shameful example of appeasement.
The annexation of the Sudetenland was not really shameful - it was necessary from a defensive point of view for Britain and France. And it was just for the majority Germans there, who were being discriminated against by the Czechs from the rest of Bohemia. The nation of Czechoslovakia in the 1920-38 period was a lot like the more recent Yugoslavia, with the Czechs playing the part of the Serbs. The "appeasement" was the subsequent demand by Hitler during the Munich meetings that the Sudetenland could be militarized by Germany, which left the rest of Czechoslovakia in a hopeless situation, allowing an easy invasion by Hitler in March '39. The other shameful part was that Czechoslovakia was handed this fait accompli by Hitler, Chamberlain and Daladier without any representation.
QrazyQat: It also seems certain that Reagan promised the Iranians, pre-election, to provide them with weapons and spare parts if they held the hostages until after he was inaugurated.
IIRC, the Iranian arms deal was later, after Iraq invaded Iran and we ended up supplying both sides. The [unproven but likely] conspiracy was cooked up by
William Casey and GHW Bush who disappeared for something like 2 days during the 80's presidential campaign and were reported to be in Paris, probably talking to the Iranians. The deal was just for the Iranians to keep holding the hostages to ensure some revenge against Carter who gave some support to the Shah, and who wouldn't get any credit for their release [i.e., no October surprise].
The thing I remember about Grenada invasion was that was ostensibly to protect the American medical students at St. George's U. Several of them were bewildered by the invasion because they apparently were never threatened.
Didn't he [Reagan] start with the Alzheimer's in, like, 1994 or so?
More like 1954 or 1964. People just didn't notice.
-from a People's Park veteran
Posted by: natural cynic | May 17, 2008 3:22 PM
Which didn't keep the lying bastards from using footage of the hostages coming home in his re-election adds. I still get angry thinking about those adds.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 17, 2008 6:19 PM
dRe Ian H Spedding FCD
1. As I have pointed out numerous times on this blog and others, Chamberlains capitulation of ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler was not only immoral but stupid. The fact of the matter is that, in 1938, Czechoslovakia had the most modern armaments industry on the continent and a modern well equipped armed forces. In addition, the Sudetenland was well fortified against an invasion from Germany. By selling out Czechoslovakia at Munich, Chamberlain shot himself in the foot by ceding that industry to Germany.
2. The fact is that the German armed forces were in no condition in 1938 to conduct a full scale European war against a combination of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia. In particular, the panzer divisions which were crucial in defeating the French army in 1940 barely existed in 1938. This was recognized by the German General Staff whose officers were horrified by Hitlers' brinkmanship and were planning a coup against him. Had Chamberlain informed Hitler at Munich that an attack on Czechoslovakia would be considered an act of war, it is likely that Hitler would have backed down as the evidence shows that he was bluffing. By giving Hitler a cheap victory, he cut the legs from under the coup plotters.
3. Had Hitler not backed down but instead attacked Czechoslovakia, the German armed forces would have faced a far more formidable then they faced in Poland a year later (the Polish army opposed the panzers with horsed cavalry).
The source for these comments is historian Walter Goerlitzs' book, "A History of the German General Staff."
Posted by: SLC | May 17, 2008 7:12 PM
Folks siting the Civil War as an example of Americans declaring war on a more powerful foe need to read their history. The South instigated the war precisely because they, in their blind arrogance, figured they could easily defeat the sickly, half-breed, unmanly Northern immigrant masses who worked in factories all day and lived in cities, both well known producers of unclean air and dissipated morals. The southerners saw themselves as racially, morally, and physically superior (and found a basis for this delusion in some of the pro-agrarian writings of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, for instance), and felt that the manful outdoor activities of southern agrarian life gave them a significant advantage over the North, as did their lack of immigrants.
Of course, the professional, career military men of the South didn't think this, but almost every southern politician and civilian did, and it was these people who pushed for secession.
Posted by: Julian | May 17, 2008 8:20 PM
You know, for someone who calls himself a natural cynic, you sure do eat propaganda easily enough. Next you'll tell us the raid on that German radio station on the Polish boarder really was by the Polish military.
Posted by: Julian | May 17, 2008 8:24 PM
SLC: That's an excellent point. The Germans made good use of Czech tanks in WWII. Without them they would have had a much harder time against the French (most people vastly underestimate the French as a military power in those years).
Bush and McCain really need to get over themselves. War is the pursuit of policy by other means and chivalry has been dead since the Swiss beat Charles the Bold (at least). If running gets you more of what you wan than fighting, then you run. Fighting unnecessary battles isn't brave, its stupid.
Posted by: James K | May 18, 2008 1:10 AM
Didn't Eisenhower negotiate a cease-fire in the Korean War with Mao? Didn't he also negotiate the never-held elections in Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh?
Posted by: bernarda | May 18, 2008 5:19 AM
So long as we allow our foreign policy to be dictated by the corporatists we will invade countries on whatever pretext necessary to secure their bottom line.
Reagan, before the alzheimer's was a shallow, vainglorious buffoon. He was a willing tool of the corporatists, but a tool, none the less.
Let us not forget George H.W. Bush's wonderful inaugural present to Clinton in the form of the idiotic intervention in Somalia--for which, of course, Clinton is blamed.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2008 7:27 AM
Just a quick note: It was obvious to any observer that Saint Ronnie was showing the effects of Alzheimer's as early as 1984...see recordings of the presidential debates and compare them with his performances from 1980.
Martin
Posted by: MartinDH | May 18, 2008 8:44 AM
Comparing 1980 to 1984 debates sounds interesting. I'd say it was the effect of being shot rather than Alzheimer's, or maybe a combination.
Posted by: Rich | May 19, 2008 12:24 AM
Rich:
Unless St. Ronnie was carrying his brain in his chest, it is unlikely that a bullet in the lung would accelerate symptoms of Alzheimer's.
Maybe the shock did it!
Martin
Posted by: MartinDH | May 19, 2008 11:29 PM
Isn't it the case that the hostages were released on the day that Reagan was inaugurated? He did nothing at all to win their release, it was all Carter's administration.
Posted by: Karl | June 24, 2008 3:21 PM