Friday, November 14, 2008
On Nov. 14, The University Daily Kansan ran a cartoon illustrating the choice between “candyland” and “reality” approaching President-elect Barack Obama. In reality we see “big sticks” (military power), and in Candyland we see “Neville Chamberlain” and “diplomacy.”
For the unaware, Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister best known today for appeasing the Third Reich and failing to act enough against Hitler. Comparisons between his inaction and Obama’s plans to open the gates of discussion before opening the gates of destruction are birthed from the same reactionary primordial soup that feeds Rush Limbaugh, and, like Limbaugh, are full of hot air.
Diplomacy is an essential component of international policy. Our “shoot first and ask questions later” philosophy is rooted in the instinct that scaring or bombing the hell out of someone will make them cooperate and won’t sow the seeds of resentment and retaliation.
Whereas appeasement requires that you fail to fight back once a fight starts, diplomacy seeks to ensure that a fight never happens at all. They’re different, and in conflating them, we feed our hawkish culture and shut down the lines of communication. We pretend that war brings peace and that peace is a lie. Someone needs a reality check.
— — Young Han C. Lester is a sophomore from Roeland Park.
Mallot and Haworth Halls, two of the larger ...
1 comment
Lawrence Settles Lawrence graduate student “I like T-Pain ...
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, already two of the ...
1 comment
It was the symmetry of this sidewalk that ...
1 comment
Texting while driving is the cause of many ...
1 comment
Comments
TDoehring (anonymous) says...
As the cartoonist responsible for the comic of confusion I feel it is crucial to clarify the message of the art. I would like to firstly note that I neither believe, nor do I condone the notion that diplomacy is not a honorable mode of peace. I wanted to, however, highlight that actively seeking out discourse with countries that flagrantly hate the very ideals of the United States will likely not yield a solution.
Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick Diplomacy did not endorse a "shoot first, ask later" form of government. Conversely, it stressed that America should be aware and vigilant of, but not meddle in the affairs that do not directly concern it or its neighbors. If confronted, America would actively and with force eliminate the threat to Americans' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You could argue this would be a tally in the "watch, don't shoot" column.
The underlying message of the column and the art is that no one wants another international conflict. No one is "pro-war." The fact of the matter is that at some point, potentially during President Obama's first term in office, we may face a crossroads. At that crossroads the reality of it is, in my conservative opinion, that we may face a difficult decision, and it may lead to either the removal of the United States as an international super power, or its reassertion of its right to be as such. Barak Obama is in a position to greatly alter the nation's future.
-Tyler Doehring
November 17, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
connerm (anonymous) says...
We have never had a "shoot first and ask questions later" philosophy, Young Han. Please specify a situation where we have done this.
November 19, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )