ABSTRACT
In the years before the outbreak of World War Two in September 1939, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940) believed that he could prevent war by appeasing Adolf Hitler, that is, by allowing the German leader to unite all Germans in the Third Reich (see Figure 1.1). Only then, Chamberlain theorized, would Hitler be satisfied and cease making additional demands that threatened European peace. On returning from a meeting with Hitler on September 30, 1938, at which the British and French leaders had capitulated to Hitler’s demand that the Germanpopulated Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia be immediately ceded to Germany and at which Hitler had signed an agreement not to enter into a war with Britain, Chamberlain read a statement to a crowd assembled in front of the prime minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street. “My good friends,” he announced, “this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.” Chamberlain’s theory proved entirely wrong. Far from satisfying Hitler, his policy had whetted the
criticized by those who believed in the theory of “realism” that we will describe shortly. Winston Churchill (1874-1965), a realist who recognized Chamberlain’s error, declared: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Influenced by Chamberlain’s disastrous policy of appeasing Hitler, President George W. Bush and
Figure 1.1 Neville Chamberlain waving the agree-
ment he had signed with Adolf Hitler the previous day
British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq and oust that country’s dictator, Saddam Hussein. Bush claimed that among the reasons for invading Iraq was transforming that country into a democracy in which Iraqis would enjoy freedom and human rights, and intervention in the name of liberty was one of the defining traits of others like Vice-President Dick Chaney, who were known as neoconservatives or “neocons.” Bush and his advisers believed, as many “liberals” did, that democratic societies were peaceful and that a democratic Iraq would no longer behave aggressively. The overthrow of Saddam, they believed, would lead to the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East, thereby bringing peace to the region. Genuine and durable democracy, however, requires more than political parties and competitive elections. It also requires the rule of law, a spirit of tolerance of different views, and willingness to compromise – attributes alien to Iraqi political life.
