Both men held powerful positions influencing foreign policy, and both men were associated with controversial military decisions.  In World War I, First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill made the ill-fated decision to invade Turkey at Gallipoli.  Vice President Cheney strongly advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  When they lost their positions both men continued to live near their respective country's capitals, where they remained politically engaged, bluntly and regularly espousing unpopular opinions.  Both men were shunned for expressing their opinions, not only by their political opponents but by members of their own political parties!

        Both men advocated aggressive vigilance against potential enemies, to audiences that were tired of war and longing for peace.  Given Churchill's current reputation as one of the great statesmen of the 20th Century, it is surprising to note that he was loathed by many Britons in the 1930s.  However, Churchill was one of the few advocating rearmament and possible war in a country that had lost one million men in the trenches of France in World War I. 

       Churchill's "hawk" advocacy was countered by many others, led by "dove" Neville Chamberlain, who argued that peaceful diplomacy would persuade dictators to give up military aggression.  Chamberlain and his supporters further argued that armed vigilance would enrage the dictators and cause them to become even more aggressive. These arguments are powerfully seductive because most people living in democracies want nothing more than to be left alone to peacefully pursue their individual versions of happiness.

        Cheney is in a somewhat similar position.  The other members of the Bush foreign policy team have disappeared from D.C., and none of them are publically defending the Bush anti-terrorism policies.  Even though the particular circumstances are different, Cheney, like Churchill, advocates alone, defending policies that are currently unpopular.  However, instead of warning against dictators leading powerful organized militaries, Cheney has the more difficult task of warning against the possible dangers presented by shadowy non-state terrorist groups who are not so obviously threatening.

        However, despite the differences, both Churchill and Cheney confronted the same flawed political philosophy: pacifism.  Unfortunately the Obama administration has begun flirting with pacifism, which is always politically popular when a populace suffers from war fatigue.  The president seems to think that a combination of apologizing for past American aggression and pursuing non-threatening diplomacy with our potential enemies will reduce terrorist activities. 

        Unfortunately, Obama, like Neville Chamberlain before him, does not appear to understand the psychology of dictators and would-be dictators. They want the leaders of democracies to be pacifistic, because pacifism promotes weak policies that can be aggressively exploited.  Furthermore, Obama does not understand why the United States is hated.  He thinks the United States is hated because of its recent foreign and military policies.  However, the United States could stop supporting Israel and bring all troops home from everywhere, and Americans would still be hated just as vehemently by extremists because of how we live and the freedoms that we enjoy.

        Barack Obama should listen to his political enemy, Dick Cheney, for one simple reason: Obama could become another Chamberlain if he continues to flirt with pacifism and thereby allows another 9/11 to happen.  Obama needs to accept the hard truth that the Patriot Act and the other Bush anti and counter terrorism policies prevent terrorist attacks.  Pacifism, no matter how seductively popular, is appeasement that leads to more aggression, not less.

        When Neville Chamberlain triumphantly returned home from Munich in September of 1938, he believed that he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and that his political enemy Churchill would end up in the dustbin of history.  Instead, we all know who ended up in the dustbin.