It's somewhat unfair that Chamberlain takes all the blame for the failure of "the West" in what seemed to be sincere efforts to give Hitler what he wanted without seeming weak. After all, Daladier (France) & Mussolini (Italy) signed the Munich Agreement too. It had a huge loophole that Hitler was quick to exploit.
When Germany occupied Sudetenland as per the agreement, Poland at the same time annexed a Czech territory & 3 areas in Slovakia. No "West" nation made any comment about this. That sent a tacit message that it was alright to just take what you wanted, so long as it was only a little bit.
"Munich's" hole specifically said it was valid for so long as Czechoslovakia was a sovereign nation. The Polish imperialism was jumped on by Hitler to encourage Slovakia to separate from the Czech Republic & declare itself as a sovereign nation. It then quickly signed an alliance with Germany & became a "puppet" gov't. It also invaded Poland in 1939 (with no comment from "the West") & gave two motorised divisions to the 1941 invasion of the U.S.S.R.
After Hitler annexed the rest of the Czech land, on 31 March Chamberlain made what seemed like a demented "guarantee" of Poland's borders. This was just outright provocation to Germany & inspired the "3 Colonels" junta that ruled Poland to forgo negotiation with Hitler & plan to attack Germany & seize land as far as the Oder R. This would take back land Poland had lost to Prussia in 1772.
Entrenching the idea that "a little theft" is alright, on 7 April, Mussolini, now disappointed by the apparent "Western" insincerity, annexed Albania - again without comment from the U.K. & France.
I've no idea how good or bad Chamberlain was as to the U.K. domestic policy, but his foreign policy seemed inconsistent, in part due to his naivete. Is that "foolish"? Debatable. Was he a "coward"? No, I see no evidence of it, even though he wouldn't be in the front lines of any war.