Obama's Munich (Part One in a Continuing Series)

Like the tide, it's quite easy to predict neoconservative reaction to any foreign policy decision short of regime change. Here is Seth Cropsey delivering a calm, measured analysis of President Obama's missile defense decision:

The Obama administration chose an historic month to appease the Russians by reneging on the U.S. proposal to place ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. September 1st of 2009 was the 70th anniversary of the Nazis' unprovoked attack on Poland. In the middle of the same month the Red Army invaded Poland--70 years ago to the day. At the end of this month is the 71st anniversary of the Munich agreement in which England and France agreed to allow Hitler to annex large portions of western Czechoslovakia.

And he concludes:

This capitulation is all the more inexcusable because, unlike the situation that Chamberlain faced at Munich in 1938, Russia, unlike Nazi Germany, is still a relatively weak power. The Obama administration has as little to fear from Russia's military as it has to expect that Russian goodwill or self-interest will have a moderating effect on Iran's plans to become a nuclear power.

The future damage, however, to international perceptions of American resolve is incalculable.

Incalculable. I guess we'll have to check back in a few years (if the Internet still operates in the ashes of civilization). But really, what is the point of such rhetoric other than to desensitize the public to legitimate security crises? And even if this does rise to the level of a world-historical miscalculation on President Obama's part, do we really think it's as bad as World War II?