Give Them Up, Saddam

As American posturing continues in the UN Security Council, so Iraqi posturing continues in Baghdad. The new resolution is pointless and unconvincing. While many of us have stated that a necessary (but not sufficient) pre-condition for war must be a UN resolution authorising the use force, this is not that resolution. The language used is vague, making no specific mention of the use of force. Therefore, a vote for this resolution is not a vote authorising the use of force. The euphemism "serious consequences" is not sufficient.

Meanwhile, President Hussein refuses to destroy the Al Samoud 2 missiles. The Iraqi claim that these weapons do not contravene the limit on missile ranges is a clear fabrication, and Hussein is doing himself, and his people, a grave disservice by making such statements. While I understand Hussein's reluctance to remove any defensive capability in the face of western aggression, the Al Samoud 2 has little accuracy, and its launch sites are too well known to the Americans for it to play more than the most minor of roles in defending Iraq. Keeping these missiles serves little purpose, and provides the hawks with their first substantial evidence of Iraqi non-compliance. While the missiles alone are not a cause for war, their retention could be seen as pointing to the more general truth of the Bush administration's claims. Worse, a second piece of similar evidence would be convincing proof that the inspection regime is failing, making war inevitable.

If Hussein hopes to avoid war he must destroy these missiles immediately. Given his apparent love of brinkmanship, I fully expect the order for their destruction to be given at the last minute. It is a dangerous game he plays.

Graham Robinson. 26th February 2003.

Don't Mention The War

Watching Channel 4's "America on Trial" I was struck by how often American hawks turned to the same, tired straw man in an attempt to bully Europe into supporting their position. This is an argument based on ignorance and lack of logic. An argument that has become a cliche - the stereotypical last resort of an American losing to any European. Which argument? "If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German."

There are many reasons to object to this line of reasoning. It is interesting to note that some Americans feel the need to resort to a time before my parents' births to find an act that they can claim was more in Europe's interest than their own. There are, however, two main objections. Firstly, that American actions during the second world war become worthless if they are used to force us to submit to American domination. Secondly, that the claim may well not be true.

Let me begin with what is true. Some 30,000 American troops died fighting in Europe, helping to destroy the Nazi menace. Many more were injured, physical or psychologically. Their sacrifice helped create the Europe I was born into. The important question here is why? No one can doubt that the war against Hitler was necessary. The standard justification for the war was fighting for freedom, democracy, free speech. I'll give a slightly different spin on this in a moment, but I have no doubt that the vast majority of those who sacrificed their lives believed this. And they succeeded.

This is why I find the "speaking German" argument so offensive. American (and British, French, Russian...) troops died to ensure free speech, free opinion in Europe. Yet this sacrifice is used to beat us in to submission. Disagreeing with America becomes "ungrateful" at best; "ignoring the values our sons died for" at worst. Speaking our mind is the value American troops died for. If you wish us to change our minds, convince us. Using a sacrifice intended to protect freedom to stifle freedom insults those who died. Any American using such an argument should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

America did not fight in the Second World War alone. Indeed, for much of the war, America played no active role. America did not fight in the Battle of Britain. America did not fight at Stalingrad. Yet it was these two battles that halted the German expansion - one westwards, one eastwards. Had both fights been lost, America would have faced a Europe united under Hitler; a Germany stretching from Siberia to the Pyrenees, from the Mediterranean to the North Atlantic.

Could America have faced such a Germany? Well, of course we can't say. We can't go back and re-run history, and see what might have happened. What we can do is construct plausible scenarios. With the war in Europe lost, and no allies to fight beside, America may have concentrated on fighting Japan. Hitler would have been free to act in Europe, possibly even able to provide additional support to the Japanese. Japan would have been strengthened, while America's lack of allies would have left it weaker. The war in the Pacific would have been harder to win. And without the distractions of war, Hitler would have had more chance to develop the nuclear bomb, a device he may have shared with his Japanese allies.

This scenario is extreme, deliberately so. The point remains that we can't know what might have been, only what was. Without American troops, the war in Europe would have been more difficult, but we may have won anyway. Playing what if makes for fine science fiction, but at this crude level tells us little about politics.

Can we then say to Americans "If it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking Japanese"? As fairly as they can use the "speaking German" variant. In war, allies fight together, their combined contributions achieving whatever victories occur. Separating out one ally as "essential" is always a mistake. Defeating Hitler served America's interests as much as our own, and their commitment to that war was just as strong as ours.

It is this memory that both continents should take from the Second World War. Not saviour and saved, but comrades, working with common interest for a more stable world. This is a view opposed to that of the Bush administration, striving to provide America with a protective isolation and viewing other countries only as tools or opponents. The America of the Second World War worked with its allies, sought strength in unity. That the sacrifices of that America are used to support the divisionist, isolationist policies of the current administration, I find exceedingly offensive.

Graham Robinson. 26th February 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.