Godwin's Law

It's annoying, but also highly appropriate, that my first real post regards our president making a facile comparison between today's Middle East problems and World War II. There's an amusing social science idea, "Godwin's Law" which states that as any "discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." I would propose a corollary to that, the "Munich Metaphor Law" which states that as any conservative continues to speak or write about U.S. foreign policy, the probability of them referencing Munich approaches one.

Historical analogies to World War II are among the most commonly and least accurately employed by pundits and politicians, so it's no surprise that Bush resorted to one in his speech to the Israeli Knesset today:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The main question here is how the historical context of World War II helps us understand today's conditions. A significant segment of Americans and politicians (especially conservatives, btw) did call for the U.S. to stay out of European and Asian affairs. Who are their equivalents today? As far as dealing with al Qaeda, last I checked most everyone in "mainstream" political dialogue is saying the U.S. needs to defeat al Qaeda, not negotiate with them, differing mainly on the best strategy for carrying this out.

How about Iran, surely Achmedinejad is like the new Hitler! Well, no, most likely not. Let's review: Hitler wanted to militarily conquer the world. Does Achmedinejad want to do that? I haven't really heard anyone suggest that. How about just invading a few of Iran's neighbors? No one's really saying that either and the main nation he might target already is tilting more pro-Iranian everyday, thanks to, well, us. How about a pre-meditated nuclear strike on Israel? For that to be a worry, someone needs to convince me that Achmedinejad is far crazier than Hitler and does not care one bit about turning his nation into a nuclear waste heap. 'Cause that is exactly what will happen; Israel has the capacity to attack Iran with nuclear weapons delivered by land, sea, and air , leaving a 0% chance of Iran escaping undestroyed.

So, there's not much "there" there. To sum up my thoughts on such analogies here are some apropos words from the great Stephen Colbert: "That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it."

UPDATE: People smarter than me weigh in. And guess what Joe Lieberman thinks of Bush's speech?

UPDATE 2: If we're doing World War II analogies, this Chris Matthews interview is kind of like the Marianas Turkey Shoot. I'm not always a fan of Matthews but the way he rips this right-wing radio host to shreds is worth watching.