Restraining the four horsemen of the Apocalypse

George W. Bush is a master at redefining the bottom. Every time it's seemed that he's plumbed the lowest levels of leadership, he discovers ways to slide even deeper into the muck at the bottom. Today in Israel he did it again.

"Some seem to believe," he said, "that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement."

Like much of what he says, this has a patina of sensibility to it. But as usual, that thin patina proves to be only camouflage for demagoguery.

What's he really saying here? That we shouldn't negotiate with our adversaries simply because they are, well, our adversaries? How, pray tell, is it otherwise possible to resolve conflicts, save by annihilation? Should we negotiate only with our friends, with people we find agreeable? Much help that is in resolving disputes.

The real world is filled with conflict. The quality that separates civilization from barbarism isn't the lack of conflict, but the ability to deal with conflict without resorting to violence and coercion. Negotiation is the tool for resolving conflicts. The only tool. Yes, that means talking with adversaries, even negotiating with them. But it's infinitely better than the desolation of war.

The easy route, the cheap route, the cowardly route, the barbaric route, is the one Bush would use. Negotiation is the more difficult, the more courageous, the more honorable ... but ultimately, the only successful way to resolve conflicts and still restrain the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 May 2008

Bush should be ashamed. But he's not, so his misguided approach must be condemned.