DAS Blog

Ironically, those who argued against the containment of "madman" (TM) Saddam Hussein using the you cannot contain a madman like Saddam Hussein or Hitler, forget that containment was not only never tried against Hitler, but also that the Cold War doctrine of containment, thought of by Truman's people (who were considered soft on Communism 'cause they wanted to have a coherent policy in dealing with the commies rather than just waving around big weapons and sending other people's kids to war -- this historical insight should be remembered by all those bloviators who claim to be the heirs of Truman: it isn't those who want to kiss Cmdr. Kookoo Bananas who are the heirs to Truman, but those who want to have a long term policy to minimize terrorism rather than merely getting into millions of hot wars, who are the heirs of Truman), was developed with the idea of being exactly how we should have dealt with Hitler in the 1930s rather than appeasing him: i.e. as an alternative between having to fight myriad wars and appeasement. Hitler isn't the poster child for the failure of containment, he is the poster child for what happens when containment isn't tried.

So arguing that containment cannot work when a leader is as mad as Hitler (and Stalin was so much more rational?) makes no sense historically as the theory of containment was developed using 20/20 hindsight based on what we should have done with Hitler rather than trying to appease him.

Something tells me this irony, like so many other ironies, is lost on the "you cannot contain a madman" crowd.