The design is clean and puts a clear emphasis on the posts, not all the "widgets" that have proliferated in the blogosphere. It's down-to-earth and straight to the point.

Read: Holy shit. This site is ugly as hell.

From a design perspective, it really is an absolute disaster.

"American Future is a must-read for anyone who wants to keep up with foreign policy and national security issues?"

Why?

Some of what it promotes...

Neville Chamberlain... "returned from the Munich Conference and announced "Peace in Our Time." Appeasement didn't cure Nazi Germany's ideological illness. It won't cure Iran's, either... Just ask Neville Chamberlain, who lived long enough to see his dream of peace shattered."

Why is Neville Chamberlain the only "appeaser" to be referenced?

After all, it was 70 years ago...

Why not consider the "appeasement" of North Korea (and surrogates China and the Soviet Union) in Panmunjom in 1953?

Why not consider the "appeasement" of North Korea when it captured the USS Pueblo in 1968?

Why not consider the "appeasement" of North Vietnam (and surrogate China) at the Paris Peace Accords in 1973?

Why not consider the continuing "appeasement" of China as it greatly increases its military buildup and threatens Taiwan?

Why keep beating up on Chamberlain?

Is it because related factors are the same, or is because it is intended to mislead?

Look at the world in 1938...

Who was the world superpower?

If the world superpower had been any of the Allies of WWII, as we are now the superpower, Chamberlain would have lived long enough to see his dream of peace.

So let Chamberlain rest in peace.

Dean,

The North Koreans fought the UN to a standstill that American textbooks still can't stomach calling a defeat.

The North Vietnamese fought the vaunted US Armed Forces (and the cowardly politicians directing it) to a standstill that Americans were forced to admit was a defeat.

These two examples you have given were not appeasment at all, but an attempt to stanch the loss of blood and money.

Chaimberlain is beat up upon because he was nothing more than a door holder for a brute and refused to fight, thinking he could talk his way out of a beating. His successor had to do what he didn't have the balls to do.

If you really wish to talk about appeasement, talk about how successive Israeli governments have kissed Arabs' asses for 14 years - getting nothing but a kick in the groin for thanks; following in the tradition of Neville Chamberlain - who had to chooose beteen war and hoor and peace and dishonor, who chose peace with dishonor and got neither peace nor honor. Our leaders in Israel are doing the same now, have reaped no peace, only defeat and dishonor, and are on the verge of being tossed out for their treasonous stupidity.

Having said all that, you make a good point with America's attitude towards China, and with its attitude towards North Korea as well. Were I an American president, there would have been a pre-emptive strike on PRK's nuclear capabilities already with a warning to China that the entire planet would be burned to a nuclear crisp before some damned Chink planted his flag on America's soil. Let the bastards stick that yin in their yang.

When are you Americans going to retreave your balls from the jar the Saudis have it stored in and act like a great power in the true tradition of Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson?

Ruvy,

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own "facts."

MacArthur wanted, and could have attacked the Chinese communist troops across the Yalu River. Truman said no.

So Truman "appeased."

The US could have won in Vietnam if winning the war was in our vital interest. It wasn't.

So Johnson and Nixon "appeased".

Neither war had to end with the US yielding to the belligerent demands of the other side.

Appease: "to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles."

Look it up.

Chamberlain is used repeatedly as an example of "appeasement" because he represents a simple-minded example most people can understand.

But what if Chamberlain did not go to Munich in 1938? Hitler would still have gone to war a year later.

The Chamberlain "appeasement" would have made no difference in what Hitler did in 1939.

Truman said no to MacArthur to avoid a Chinese attack and possibly a nuclear war. He got the Chinese attack anyway. If you want to stretch the word till it cracks, strictly speaking, Truman appeased. But the Chinese still attacked, and still nearly defeated American (excuse me UN) forces in Korea.

Johnson could have gone the whole hogger in Vietnam - I think he should have - but not doing so was not necessarily "appeasement." It was a decision to pursue a limited war, a very different thing altogether. It was wrong and wasteful, but it was not appeasment.

I'm just as picky with my defintions as you are, Dean. Appeasement has the odor of it of trying to not deal with a bad situation that in such a way that compromises the basic ideals of the appeaser. Chamberlain's actions stunk of cowardice and appeasement. Neither Johnson's nor Truman's did - both were conducting a war.

Ruvy, you've got it wrong.

Truman said no to MacArthur AFTER the Chinese crossed the Yalu River and attacked on Thanksgiving Day, 1950.

MacArthur wanted to expand the war and attack the Chinese across the Yalu but Truman said no.

Truman then fired MacArthur in April, 1951,

Truman appeased the Communists.

The Chinese drove American forces back down to the 38th parallel where the war was fought for another two years.

As far as Johnson and Nixon are concerned they had to appease the Communists because the Vietnam War was not in our vital interest, just as the Iraq War is not in our vital interest.

In 1938, Chamberlain's actions were based on the fact that he had no choice. His country was too weak to do otherwise.

What was Chamberlain to do?

Move British troops into the Sudetenland?