Still misreading
At this point I have to wonder if it isn't willful.
The way you throw around "understanding" and phrases like "Sitting across from the table..." [sic] gives away the fact that you're trying to shoehorn what I said into a strawman form that you can attack: The "appeasement" smear so beloved of RightWing demagogues.
Here's what I really said:
In practical strategic terms, an inability to understand an enemy's way of thinking is a terrible handicap, because it prevents being able to predict what the enemy will do and come up with effective countermeasures. It puts you always in the position of reacting to the enemy's moves, instead of planning ahead to counter those moves. That blind spot cedes the initiative to the enemy.
Nothing there about "appeasement", Tom. Four uses of the word "enemy". Hardheaded observations of the practical value of being able to get into your enemy's head.
We both know that the subtext is the way that Bush's refusal to understand terrorism and to substitute meaningless jingos like "they jes hate us" for knowledge has crippled America's ability to deal with the problem. Ignorance leads to disaster; you can't fight a war with your eyes squeezed tightly shut. The point of view that you share with your Glorious Leader can lead nowhere but to disaster.