Little men in a coward's castle

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Thanks to Diogenes to point me to this, it sums up really well a point of view you seems to strongly reject :


Ironically, on the very day this second Iraq debate ended so humiliatingly in our Parliament, the US senator Robert Byrd, former Senate Democrat leader and now its longest-serving member (45 years), made a speech in the US Senate that puts to shame so much of the pap of so many of our politicians. This edited version of what he told his colleagues and his nation should be read by everyone in this country (=Australia). I make no apologies for its length:

"On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet this chamber is, for the most part, silent. Ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralysed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.

"And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. This coming battle, if it materialises, represents a turning point in US foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of pre-emption - the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future - is a radical new twist on traditional self-defence. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries wonder if they will soon be on our hit list or someone else's.

"High-level figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilising and unwise? US intentions are suddenly subject to worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against terrorism which existed after September 11.

"Here at home the mood is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising. This Administration, now in power two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a projected surplus of some $US5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. [Its] domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition. [It] has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. [It] has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care and for our elderly ...

"In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. [It] has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling for all time international order-keeping entities like the UN and NATO. [It] has called into question the perception of the US as well-intentioned peacekeeper. [It] has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats and name calling of the sort that reflects poorly on the intelligence of our leaders and which will have consequences for years to come.

"Calling heads of state pygmies, labelling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant - these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight global terrorism on our own. Our awesome military machine can do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

"The war in Afghanistan has cost us $US37 billion so far, yet there is evidence terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in the region. This Administration has not finished the first war yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife.

"Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls price and supply? To whom do we propose to hand power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of oil supply lead to worldwide recession?

" Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club? In only two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the shock and anger of any president after September 11. But to turn frustration and anger into the destabilising and dangerous foreign policy the world is witnessing is inexcusable. Frankly, many of the pronouncements by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

"Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on Iraq - a population of which over 50 per cent is under the age of 15 - this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face chemical and biological warfare, this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could be vicious terrorist retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

"We are sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts I pray this great nation and its trusting citizens are not in for the rudest of awakenings. I truly question any president who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 per cent children is 'in the highest moral traditions of our country'. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to find a graceful way out of a box of our own making."

Remember, this is a veteran American politician, not some eloquent Australian peacenik. It is political speech-making of the highest quality and courage. If Howard or Crean ever said anything similar we'd embrace them for their wise, expansive leadership.

Instead, by comparison, we do truly have pygmies.


Little men in a coward's castle
By Alan Ramsey
February 22 2003

complete link:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...5638483871.html

Yes indeed, a good speech. It reinforces my belief that any reasons given by the "coalition of the willing" for war are unclear and illegal.

well done, I like it.

[EDIT]
Hold it - let's just link this in order to avoid duplacate discussions here. Thanks!

Content Removed & Replaced with link to original discussion:

See topic 1441 - Who has read it? for what was originally posted here!
[/EDIT]

It's a really great rhetorical piece. The lack of facts makes it very attractive to leftists, and the way he presents his theories for Muslim reprisal in a question form make it undebateable, since it's just a "question". Notice that he doesn’t pre-empt any right-wing arguments, that’s because he can’t win against them.

You notice democrats talk very slowly and deliberately. They chew it up really well to make it easy to swallow.

(Bush may do the same, but that's because he's trying to appeal to the left.)

A very pretty speech, but...


"And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. This coming battle, if it materialises, represents a turning point in US foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

Hmmmm. Maybe we will defang a villian. It is not uncommon for countries to take action to defend their national interests. In this case, we will be defending the interests of the world. The interests are varied, but certainly include: disarming a tyrant who has taken aggressive action to dominate one of the most strategic regions in the world, attacked his neighbors (both combatant and non-combatant), maintained as a strategic goal the development of WMD for non-defensive purposes, etc.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of pre-emption - the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future - is a radical new twist on traditional self-defence. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries wonder if they will soon be on our hit list or someone else's.

He presents the Iraqi threat as being very abstract. He left out the fact that this very regime has not only threatened but attacked and invaded his neighbors. The same man, the same regime. He has not had a come to jesus and recanted his ways. He continues to openly defy the UN.

"High-level figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilising and unwise? US intentions are suddenly subject to worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against terrorism which existed after September 11.

A WMD response to a WMD attack is a cornerstone of deterence. Why would we take it off the table?

"Here at home the mood is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising. This Administration, now in power two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a projected surplus of some $US5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. [Its] domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition. [It] has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. [It] has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care and for our elderly ...

The economy is stumbling, etc., etc. But did George Bush and hisd policies cause this? LEt's be honest. After one of the largest booms in history that was driven by speculation (among other things) wherein people/companies foolishly squandered accumulated capital, the repercussions are quite predictable.

"In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. [It] has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling for all time international order-keeping entities like the UN and NATO. [It] has called into question the perception of the US as well-intentioned peacekeeper. [It] has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats and name calling of the sort that reflects poorly on the intelligence of our leaders and which will have consequences for years to come.

Blame, blame, blame. Now that is a constructive strategy. While his rhetoric is glorious (no doubt many years in Congress helped him hone his skills), his conclusions remain fallacious. Bush has split traditional alliances? I would be pleased to contend that US/UK are actively supporting UN resolutions. Many UN member states are balking at their legal/international obligation to enforce those resolutions. Has he read the resolutions? Rather than enact legally binding alternatives, they are using their UN podium "unofficially" to motivate very impressionable populist sentiment.

"Calling heads of state pygmies, labelling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant - these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight global terrorism on our own. Our awesome military machine can do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

I won't argue that the Administration has made mistakes in the presentation of their case. But the case itself is solid.

"The war in Afghanistan has cost us $US37 billion so far, yet there is evidence terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in the region. This Administration has not finished the first war yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife.

I don't think that these issues are necessarily mutually exclusive. Time will tell what progress we have made in Afghanistan and against terrorism. I don't think it is a legitimate argument that since we cannot provide 100% guarantees, efforts should not be made, and progress cannot be achieved.

"Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls price and supply? To whom do we propose to hand power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of oil supply lead to worldwide recession?

No one knows the answers to these questions. One thing is definitely certain: French support for Saddam will increase his moral, the moral of his soldiers, the moral of his population, and the moral of other musilm people who want to turn this into a war of the US vs. Islam. It will definitely result in the deaths of more US/UK and Iraqi people. Nice job France (and her supporters)!

" Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club? In only two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the shock and anger of any president after September 11. But to turn frustration and anger into the destabilising and dangerous foreign policy the world is witnessing is inexcusable. Frankly, many of the pronouncements by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Its great how Bush becomes the target. Who is more outrageous, Bush or Saddam?


"Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on Iraq - a population of which over 50 per cent is under the age of 15 - this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face chemical and biological warfare, this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could be vicious terrorist retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

War is hell. It stinks. But we shouldn't refrain from decisive action out of fear that people who already hate us and want to kill us, and have already done so in very dramatic fashion, may get upset with us. The phony war of 1939-1940 is a good example. The French did not want to take action against the Germans out of fear of retaliation. They were already at WAR! They allowed Hitler to build up his forces and choose the time and place of attack. We know the results.

"We are sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts I pray this great nation and its trusting citizens are not in for the rudest of awakenings. I truly question any president who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 per cent children is 'in the highest moral traditions of our country'. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to find a graceful way out of a box of our own making."

Here, here!