|
 ecause
of recent concerns that the United States might precipitate hostilities
against Iraq, I recently conjured up a wide variety of experienced
voices from the 1930s on the nature of our own present predicament.
All were men of proven sobriety and wisdom, who once dealt with
the same challenging issues in their roles as effective statesmen,
generals, heroes, nationalists, and men of letters. Without exception,
they bitterly opposed any aggressive move on the part of
the United States toward Iraq — for a wide variety of humane
reasons.
“War
Solves Nothing”
by Neville Chamberlain, prime minister of Great Britain
You went to
war with Iraq in 1991, to considerable consternation in the Middle
East — and to what effect? In war, whichever side may call
itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers. And
so now a mere decade later you find yourselves back in the same
pickle.
Obviously threats
and violence started the problem. But can they end it? I think not.
Peace for our time — peace with honor — can only be achieved
by reasonable and sensible men who exchange frank views in a spirit
of mutual respect.
Clearly the
beginning of the solution lies in mutual concessions. Just for a
moment suppose that you offer Mr. Hussein an end to the no-fly zones
and the U.N. embargo, in exchange for renouncing further territorial
ambitions beyond his borders and allowing inspectors to audit his
compliance with past international agreements. Do you really think
that he would miss the bus on that?
“Think
of America First”
by Charles Lindbergh, American hero
I have just
returned from a fruitful visit to Iraq and can confirm that almost
everything we read in the American media about Saddam Hussein
is a lie. He has no weapons of mass destruction — that is all
a media fabrication fed by the warmongers here at home. He wishes
peace more than we do. His crime seems to be that he wants the best
for his own people. They are in really bad shape thanks to the rotten
deal he got from the governments of Britain and America after the
last war.
We have no
business anywhere near Iraq — which is a reliable oil supplier
to America and stops Iranian fundamentalism. It is a modern state.
It has professional and impressive armed forces. In fact, Iraq doesn't
like fundamentalists or Communists any more than we do.
There are worse
things than not having regular elections. If we are to go to war
with a power that wants no war with us, then we can only blame the
Hebrews here at home and the Zionists abroad. They'd all like nothing
better than for American boys to shed American blood, in a time
of economic depression, to further their own plots at world domination.
Look, the truth is that we are on the wrong side of history in the
Middle East. I see only a bloody and hopeless war against such a
powerful and well-prepared Iraqi military. This will be no Afghanistan.
The Iraqis have a real air force. Let's just keep our noses out
of it, and worry about things here at home.
“You
Cannot Win”
by General Petain, decorated French general
War? Do any
of you know of real war between real powers? You should not allow
yourselves to be pressured into a war not in your interests —
especially when the forces of a billion Muslims threaten to overwhelm
you. Where are your so-called other allies? Must you always fight
on the front lines against the common enemy, in a war you cannot
win?
And will someone
please spell out exactly what Mr. Hussein has done to the United
States — other than to ensure that Iranian fanatics did not
expand beyond their borders, that Soviet Communism did not take
hold in Iraq, and that madrassas did not flourish on the
Euphrates? You should look to the future, not the past. And then
you'd see that the Islamic world is on the rise and won't go away.
Why has not anyone suggested an alliance — rather than a war
— with Iraq?
“Democracy
vs. Fascism?”
by Martin Heidegger, German philosopher
What does this
illusion matter anyway? America is about as democratic as Iraq is
fascist.
“Non-Aggression
Is the Key”
by Vyacheslav Molotov, foreign minister of the Soviet
Union
The United
States may not like Saddam Hussein, may even consider him a fascist.
But for the time being, that is no reason to go to war — especially
when Iraq and America share a number of mutual concerns: fears of
fundamentalism, Iranian nationalism, and unchecked terrorism. No
one is asking you for an alliance. But you should realistically
consider — at the very least — a non-aggression pact or
understanding in which America and Iraq agree to disagree without
going to war. Iraq can give you a free hand of sorts to pursue the
terrorists, and you agree in turn to let it put its own house in
order as it sees fit.
“More
of the Same Old Colonialism”
by Subhas Chandra Bose, Indian nationalist
The Occident
should not talk, but listen. You demonize Iraq — but why do
a billion people fear you more than they fear Saddam Hussein? Which
power — Iraq or the United States — possesses and has
used nuclear bombs? And which has more biological weapons? No, the
truth is that Iraq is autonomous, and under the control of a powerful
indigenous leader who has little fear of America or Britain. So
he naturally must become their target — if the old colonialist
control of the oil in the Middle East is to continue.
“What
Would You Do If You Were Iraq?”
by A. J. P. Taylor, British historian
Imagine yourself
as Saddam Hussein. In 1991, an American ambassador suggests that
she has no objection to his planned recovery of a lost province.
Then — after the operation is successfully completed —
her government suddenly reverses course and attacks Iraq at home!
Can someone envision a scenario, under such circumstances, in which
Mr. Hussein could be friendly to the West, even if he wished?
To south and
east there are the client states of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, replete
with American troops and planes. Turkey, another American ally,
is bristling with arms to the west. On Mr. Hussein's northern flank
rests a hostile Iran — only recently out of favor with the
United States, which once armed it to the teeth. The Persian Gulf
is little more than an American lake. Is the country that is surrounded
the aggressor, or is the culprit really the architect of such encirclement?
Can you be surprised if a proud nation — that has just recently
recovered from a humiliating defeat, and with part of its territory
still occupied — arms itself, when it is told repeatedly that
it might well be once again invaded?
“Ministers
Can Iron This Out Without War”
by Joachim von Ribbentrop, German foreign minister
Why is not
America consulting Mr. Aziz, Iraq's distinguished foreign minister?
There is no need for war. Mr. Powell should go to Baghdad immediately.
Once he is there, serious statesmen from powerful states can craft
a lasting peace which respects the legitimate aspirations of both
parties. This is a matter for shuttle diplomacy and legal accords,
backed by good faith and iron-clad assurances. You are sorely mistaken
in treating a great nation like Iraq as some sort of petty criminal;
it honors its word — if treated with respect.
“No
Unilateralism”
by Édouard Daladier, premier of France
The United
States is courting disaster. It is fighting virtually alone in Afghanistan.
The last thing it needs is a major war — which, on the last
occasion, required the commitment of a quarter-million American
troops abroad to ensure a victory that did not even result in the
real defeat of Iraq. This is a matter for the United Nations, not
the duty of any one country. I say build your missile defense —
and stay safely behind your new wall, and within your borders at
home.
I suggest that
you can allow Mr. Hussein his tanks, planes, gas, and bombs —
but on a level more commensurate with his country's population and
resources. Seek to bring him into, rather than to force him out
of, the family of nations. If Hussein could at least see one real
victory from diplomacy, then his perceived bellicosity would no
doubt end as he saw that there was more advantage to be gained from
talking than from fighting. Remember, Saddam Hussein will never
dare attack America itself.
“Moderates
and Neutrals”
by Francisco Franco, generalissimo of Spain
What can the
United States offer neutrals and moderates in the region? Do you
expect the Saudis and Kuwaitis to offer up their bases and then
receive nothing in return? You are imperiling those who are close
to Iraq while you yourselves remain safe and distant. If you were
to fight Iraq, is there any guarantee that it would not end as it
did last time — with a professed rather than real victory?
Or do you wish to leave a wounded tiger on the doorstep of other
moderates and neutrals?
If America
seeks a coalition, then let it provide upfront, to the moderate
nations of the region, money, troops, and aid — with promises
that it will win and protect, rather than abandon, its friends.
Some states have a long memory and recall that America was not always
consistent in its preferences. Today's enemy was yesterday's friend
— and will be tomorrow's what? Otherwise, there is little wisdom
in attacking a stable, lawful, and ordered society because of some
abstract preference for democracy over a solid, conservative, and
traditionalist power. Christians and capitalists are treated better
in Iraq than anywhere else in the Middle East.
“Facts,
not Fiction”
by Pierre Laval, French statesman
There is absolutely
no evidence that Iraq has committed any crime. There is no tie with
September 11, no connection with al Qaeda, and no proof of recent
support for terrorists. The United States, not Iraq, is acting illegally.
If the United States would simply cease its aspirations abroad,
the world would return to normal, and we could all live in peace
with the status quo. The real problem is with the occupation of
the West Bank, not Iraq. Europe, which is at peace now and content
with things in the Middle East, has no need of the United States
and Britain stirring up the pot.
“America
Should Look in the Mirror”
by Knut Hamsun, Norwegian novelist and Nobel laureate
America should
accept the new realities. The Islamic world is galvanized. It won't
sit idly by. I don't think bare navels, the mall, and affirmative
action will stand up against the Republican Guard. You talk a lot
about the dangers of absolutism and fanaticism, but do Americans
question their own culture — do Britney Spears, Howard Stern,
and Survivor create a culture superior to pious and patriotic
Iraqis? Is Bill Clinton a more moral man than Saddam Hussein?
“Victory”
by Winston Churchill, British statesman
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however
long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
|
