>>That, of course, is the real lesson of Munich: Neville Chamberlain's mistake was not that he played poker with Hitler, but that he thought he could hold his own with a weak hand.

Not quite true. In 1938 the Allied powers, Britain and France, actually held a military advantage over the Axis -- in terms of planes, submarines, ships, and battle-ready troops, most of the cards were still in Chamberlain's hand. Hitler's real advantage at Munich was a determination to go to war at the slightest provocation. The better analogy is not poker, but chicken.

Chamberlain's real mistake at Munich was not naivete, or even hubris. It was cynicism. He actually thought he could avoid war by abandoning Czechoslovakia.

Maybe the reason other democracies no longer take us seriously isn't weakness, either -- perhaps it's because we, like Chamberlain's England, are no longer acting quite like a democracy ourselves?

We each focused on specific quotes in the article. The one that struck me was, "Before drawing new red lines that define 'unacceptable' Iranian conduct, Obama ought to hear how little Washington has done to back up its previous red lines."

This mirrors what we did with Iraq for a decade, we set limits but didn't enforce them. The message I draw is that we should make every effort to "stick" in Iraq and tough it out, even when we think it's not working well. We have to back up the red lines we've already set.

Other democracies may or may not take us seriously, but three of the most influential (England, France and Germany) wouldn't exist as independent states today without the aid they received from us. Dealing with them may be difficult, but it can be done. Dealing with religious autocracies like Iran is another thing. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week that Israel will be destroyed and America defeated.

The reason Chamberlain "lost" at Munich wasn't so much cynicism as it was fear. England and France had a clear military advantage over Hitler's Germany, but were afraid to fight a war -- if Chamberlain had taken a stronger line, Hitler would have had no choice but to acquiesce. Hitler ran a bluff, and Chamberlain folded. Instead of taking a hard line, Chamberlain chose to talk to the villain, negotiate and appease. This may not be Barack Obama's intent when he says he will talk to leaders such as Ahmadinjad, but certianly talking to them opens the door to a similar swindle.

Trap:

The Iranians can hardly contain their glee that the U.S. is stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. They would like for to "hold our line" in Iraq for a 100 years (as McCain has suggested). Staying in Iraq and continuing to piss away troops and treasure is exactly what they want to see, and wouldn't have the slightest influence on our negotiating position with them. They lost hundreds of thousands of troops in their war with Hussein, they can hold out against our pathetic occupation for as long as it takes. Get Real!

I would add that another reason the Allies acquiesced to Hitler, on Sudetenland, was that they believed him to be insane. The argument was, that Hitler would not use the Sudeten as a springboard for taking all of Czechoslovakia because "Germany wants no Czechs."

Every time someone refers to Ahmedinejad as a madman, or as anything other than a rational and rather cunning politician, I'm remided of this.

Bord: you could be right -- but if I'm an a leader in Tehran, I don't think I'd like the knowledge that the Army that destroyed in less than two an army I couldn't beat in 10 years of fighting was right next door. "Gee, we fought them for 10 years, lost hundreds of thousands of troops, and couldn't win -- the U.S. beat them in 10 days, lost almost no troops, and left enough military stationed elsewhere to fight another war if necessary." If I was one of them, thatI wouldn't make me feel gleeful -- and I don't think I could see any profit out of the U.S. losing "treasure" as, directly or indirectly, the U.S. is setting my oil prices by buying so much of it.

So yes, I'm an advocate of the hard line against the muslim kleptocracies in the Middle East, mostly because I've seen no evidence that a softer line works. I've seen well intentioned U.S. presidents from both parties negotiate with such leaders for 30years, reaching "firm long lasting peace" agreements, after which the same leaders returned to the Middle East and took up arms again. I'm confident that Obama means well, but I can't see that his negotiations would be more successful than those done by Carter, or Clinton.

I'm afraid that the "30 years" line doesn't work by at least 28. Name another president since Carter who has attempted real negotiations with the Iranians...even just real dialogue. There hasn't been one (unless you count Reagan's underlings selling them weapons) So you've "seen no evidence that a softer line works" in part because it hasn't been tried. But even then, the "softer line" bit is misleading, as dialogue in no way implies an automatically more lenient foreign policy. Reagan had consistent and direct diplomatic contact with leaders of what he termed the "evil empire," one whose explicit national goal was our destruction, without compromising the appearance of resolve on crucial issues.

And as far as Iran's view of our "losing treasure," I don't think they are worried about losing even our indirect effect on petroleum prices, as China will replace our impact on the market long before Iranian reserves run low. And I certainly don't think that they are particularly worried about the troops stationed next door; even a cursory glance at public opinion polls and U.S. national newscasts would reveal to them that there is exactly zero appetite in the U.S. for another ground campaign. Airstrikes, maybe, but they know that to be unlikely because it would have a low probability of kneecapping Iranian nuclear programs. So no, I don't think they are sweating too much over the troops next door for the moment.

Well, I'd definitely call the Oslo accords an attempt by Clinton to use the soft approach to create peaceful conditions in the Middle East.

Reagan's foreign policy was more focused on the USSR, but he backed the Carter plan and tried to enforce the Camp David agreement with enhancements. I don't assume either incompetence or evil on the part of any of these presidents in this regard. To the extent that any blame is to be found, it is on the leaders in the Middle East who failed to execute them, or the extremists who killed the leaders (like Anwar Sadat) who might have done so. I think I'm on pretty sound footing in that we've negotiated and negotiated and negotiated and we never see the other side obeying its agreements. Saddam Hussein was a case in point. For 10 years before the U.S. invaded Iraq there had been sanctions against him, and he refused to change policies. Even if he destroyed his WMDs, he never followed the UN protocol that would have provided proof he had done so. Meanwhile his troops were shooting at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone -- put in place by the UN to keep him from continued attacks not only on his own neighbors, but also on his own people. He ignored the sanctions, played cat-and-mouse with the UN inspectors, and would be there and in charge now if it hadn't been for direct, U.S. military intervention. We tried the soft option, and it never worked. It also didn't improve the U.S. image in the Middle East -- the sanctions against Hussein were "starving children." The west was blamed instead of Hussein. Al Jazeerah is a publicity arm for Islamic extremism, not a news channel.

This is just one example. I could also cite the various agreements the Palestinians have signed and violated -- ditto for Syria. It's enough evidence for me, at least, to determine the soft option can't work.

There may be zero apetite for another ground campaign, but who says any campaign would be conducted on the ground? Even with conventional bombs we could abolish the current Iraqi government. The U.S. contains a lot of defeatists, but it is far from defeated.

Yes, it's true Iraq attacked Iran and they fought for 10 years to a stalemate.

Why are we so afraid of Iran? The US has an army in Afganhistan and in Iraq and ships of the coast of Iran. It is virtually surrounded and has a military budget a tiny fraction of ours. Why are they such a danger?

Going back to WWII

Germany had spent 10 years re-arming. They had a much greater military power than Britain or France.

Germany had 800,000 troops in 1936, 10,000 planes, a small but well armed navy.

Britain had only 100,000 troops 500 figher planes, five squads of Hurricanes, 10 anti air craft guns. France had about 500,000 troops but an even smaller airforce.

First: I don't think we are "afraid" of Iran. Second: The difference between when Iraq and Iran fought for 10 years to a stalemate can be summed up in one simple word NUKES. Iran did not have them then and there is every reason to believe they either have them now or are well on their way to having them. IF and I pray to GOD it stays only IF; we have to take on Iran to keep them out of Iraq (other than oil I don't think we really care) it would seem better to do so while we have the soldiers in place and if Iran hasn't already done so, before they fully develop their nukes. In short it is much easier to keep ground you already have than to go back and fight for it all over again. Personally. if I were in charge and had to take eliminate Iran as a threat, they would wake up one morning to the sound of incoming cruise missiles and bombs destroying their key military sites. After this is done would be a good time for the new POTUS to make an offer to talk and do so with leverage. Of course, IF Obama is our next POTUS and he keeps his campaign promises, we will talk first, get a black eye and then withdraw to see if they will be our friends. QED in November, May God bless and guide America as we vote for our next POTUS.

Trap: The problem with your cursory dismissal of what you term as a "soft approach" is that you don't define what would constitute a hard line approach. If you are referring to any type of negotiations, or simply meaningful dialogs as a soft approach then you would by elimination construe that the only option left is a military action. Lumping all negotiations as a soft approach and maintaining that this is not an option virtually guarantees that the U.S. will not achieve any satisfactory situation with Iran or any other country in the ME for that matter.

Now, if you deem the only viable option is military action against Iran or "holding the line", then we are doomed to never establishing the stated objective in the ME: stability, democracy, and the not so often stated objective: oil.

Of course our military could defeat Iran in days or even hours. That is not the issue or the point. We defeated Hussein in days (remember shock & awe), but our occupation has been a disastrous clusterfuck. What would we do when we defeated Iran? Occupy the entire Persian Gulf region? To what end? What really is our real deterrent or threat to Iran? Our presence in Iraq as an occupier has not and will not give them a second’s pause in their current agenda, namely baiting this current administration, stirring the pot in the ME, and advocating the destruction of Israel. Have we perhaps determined that there might be some other things they might really want, and are just posturing aggressively like NK? This administration has talked with NK, with positive results, and they actually have a nuke. Actually, a lot will most likely change when Dubya is gone, and our next President, whether McCain or Obama will undoubtedly be taking to the Iranians.

So, just what would you propose be our "hard line" regarding Iran be? The outcome to invading and occupying don't look too promising at this point.

You didn't cite a single attempt at negotiation with Iran. The Palestinians, yes, but I think the compromised position the U.S. occupies as a broker in that situation makes it problematic to use that as an excuse for the blanket statement of "you cain't negoshee-ate witthem Ay-rabs." Likewise, Iraq was a peculiar situation by virtue of having been recently defeated in war by the United States, but still retaining the capability to oppress its own people and cause trouble in the region as a whole. The lesson of all of this is that interactions with each country are unique, that they change with time (Egypt under Sadat or Mubarak has had a decidedly different role in the American paradigm than it did in the era of Nasser), and that this very uniqueness needs to be exploited where possible and contained where it is not. Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel because the opportunity, the interests of those countries, and the political will within them came together at the same moment in time. To assert that the same cannot be accomplished with Iran, particularly in light of the surprisingly pro-American views of its populace, is foolish.

As for a bombing campaign, that is even more foolish. What has happened every time the U.S. has rattled its saber in Iran's direction? The Iranian people (who, as previously mentioned, are quite sympathetic to Western ideas) rallied predictably around their government in the face of a threat from an outsider. So if we bomb them, a few bombs fall on nuclear facilities, a few fall on heavily-populated cities, and what do you think will happen - the ayatollahs will fall? Hell, no. The Iranian people will give their crappy government a free pass on its crappy performance, because the natural response of any nation is to rally together when attacked. Meanwhile, those aspects of the nuclear program that are buried far enough underground to escape the bombing will continue, expand, and eventually reach their goal - putting nuclear weapons in the hands of an Iranian government with considerably more reason to use those weapons wherever possible against the U.S.