Short story Debate.

Copyrights reserved by the author. If you are in doubt, please click on 'Copyrights' and read the details.

A national debate on a local level

by

J. G. Fabiano

Neighborhoods come in many sizes. They can consist of apartments in an apartment house or they can consist of our world's nations. Whatever size neighborhood you describe they are usually filled with people of conflicting ideas and arguments about what should take place. Some of these arguments consist of how to control the neighborhood pets' waste or how to handle a rogue state.

The potential for war in the Middle East has polarized many neighborhoods like it has polarized the world. Arguments are presently being debated in the United Nations but people who live in most of York's neighborhoods are also debating them. Last Saturday I passed the town hall to see two groups of people standing together. One was promoting world peace while the other was promotion the probable war in Iraq. The most important observation I made is that the two groups were together.

For the past week I have been in a bit of a debate myself with one of my neighbors concerning the situation in Iraq. I thought it would be interesting to show the readers what this debate consisted of. The debate started when I sent my neighbor, James Eldridge, a petition asking the UN to give Iraq more time in order to disarm. The original letter read as follows:

Dear friend,

I'm hoping you can join me on an emergency petition from citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. The petitions going to be delivered to the 15 member states of the Security Council on THURSDAY, MARCH 6. If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously important and powerful message -- people from all over the world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But, we really need everyone who agrees to sign up today. You can do so easily and quickly at:

http://www.moveon.org/emergency/

The stakes couldn't really be much higher. A war with Iraq could kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and inflame the Middle East. According to current plans, it would require an American occupation of the country for years to come and it could escalate in ways that are horrifying to imagine. We can stop this tragedy from unfolding but we need to speak together, and we need to do so now. Let's show the Security Council what world citizens think.

My neighbor, James Eldridge responded:

Hi Jim,

I added this statement to my signature:

I ask the UN to stand fast regarding the demands of all UN Resolutions demanding immediate and total disarmament by Iraq. The Iraqi regime is lead by a megalomaniac, who has shown neither reluctance nor remorse to kill and torture tens of thousands of his own people. He has invaded neighboring nations on more than one occasion. The Iraqi government encourages, and supports financially, suicide bombers in Israel who kill and maim innocent persons, including children and babies, with no reluctance. The desire of the Iraqi regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction is beyond dispute. The letter to the right mentions that the scourge of war brought untold sorrow to mankind in the 20th century. This is certainly true. It is also very likely that had the democratic nations of Europe faced a maniacal dictator with strength and resolve, rather than empty platitudes about the desire for peace in 1937, that World War II would have been prevented. Unfortunately today, two of Europe's great democracies, France and Germany, and the young democracy Russia, appear determined to repeat this mistake. I urge the Security Council to support the efforts of the United States, England, Spain, Australia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and other like-minded nations to have the Security Council gather the strength to pass a resolution that makes clear that Iraq has squandered its many chances to disarm. Iraq is an immediate and real threat to world peace. It is only the fortitude of persons of good will and peaceful intentions to reluctantly accept the burden of the defense, and the willingness to fight for a just cause, that will deter aggression and preserve the last, best hope of humanity - free, democratically based government. If the UN wishes to remain relevant in world affairs, it must support President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and all other persons who realize that great evil must be confronted with determined and great strength.

Jim Eldridge

The debate between neighbors was well on its way. I responded by discussing the following:

James,

I enjoyed your response. I agree that the UN should stand fast regarding the demands of their resolutions demanding immediate and total disarmament by Iraq. I believe the UN is doing just that. It is common knowledge that the Iraq is ruled by a megalomaniac who shows little reluctance to kill and torture many of his own people. It is also common knowledge that most of the Arab world, notably Saudi Arabia, is also ruled by men who think they are omnipotent. In fact, the United States was a good friend of the Shah of Iran who was known to use torture and murder to keep his power. Iraq's history of torture and murder pales when compared to the totalitarian regimes of China and North Korea. I do not agree that Iraq has any connections to the Persian world of Bin Laden. History clearly shows that Arabia and Persia are natural enemies. Bin Laden has stated in the past that secular leaders like Saddam Hussein are infidels who should be ousted. As for Iraq's desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction is beyond dispute. The basic problem here is that Iraq is attempting to build an arsenal. North Korea is not only building an arsenal but is also stating that they are willing to use it. Our government's policy toward Iraq is one of war. Our government's policy toward Korea is one of diplomacy. This particular concept makes little sense.

You talk of history. I only pray that our leaders have some knowledge of history. Like most people in my nation I have no idea what to believe. I have no concept as to whether I should support my country's policies or denounce them. I read as many newspapers as I can and watch all the major news channels on television but I still can't decide what is right and what is wrong. I can't remember a time in my stage of my nation's history when this type of a problem existed. During the 1960's and into the early part of the 1970's my nation was fighting what is now known as an illegal war. Dwight D. Eisenhower's fear of a military industrial complex came into being. Patriots who loved what this nation of ours stood for finally destroyed it. Now we have another problem. Our government states that we must go to war in order to save the world from a mad man. The United Nations sent in inspectors in order to make sure this mad man is not armed. The nations of our world are hoping the United Nations will keep peace and thus save lives. But, our government does not believe this is enough. The leadership of our nation states that the mad man is hiding weapons of mass destruction and that if we don't stop him now he will become more powerful and more difficult to stop in the future. Should we believe a world body over our own government?

I was always taught that history holds the answers to the political problems of today. A favorite quote is that if man does not understand history he will be condemned to repeat it. What advice does history have for us today?

It is embedded in all of our minds that on September 11, 2001, our nation was brutally attacked. Many innocent men and women lost their lives. No one will forget this date and I am convinced that no one would ever want to. We countered this atrocity by destroying a terrorist regime in Afghanistan and to this day continue to take the terrorist group responsible apart. But, this is not the first time in our history we were attacked. On August 10, 1964, our Congress approved a joint resolution concerning this attack.

The resolution was produced, " To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way: Now, therefore, be it

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the South-east Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress. If one changes a few words around, changes the names of the governments involved, and makes the dates a bit more current the situation we are currently in does not sound much different.

The next couple of decades proved to be disastrous for our nation. Tens of thousands of our young men and women were killed. Many more Vietnamese were killed thus proving to one of the most powerful nations on the Earth that no nation has the power or right to make what it thinks is right happen through might. Using this point of view it may seem obvious that the course of history we are about to embark on is wrong. Are we going to dismantle the United Nations as we did to the League of Nations a few years before the dark days of World War II? But, there was another point in our world's history when ignoring a threat proved to be equally disastrous. The following is the wording of the printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938, after the Munich Conference had ended the day before:

"We, the German Fuehrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and then said:

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time etc.

Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

We all know that World War II occurred soon after. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people lost their lives because of what appeared to have been a mistake of policy.

Looking back in history makes it difficult to know whether or not one is traveling the correct path. I would assume it is of utmost importance to trust the leaders of our nation and to have faith in both their judgments and motives. As a teacher I don't want to see any of my students die without living out all of their dreams. As an American I don't want to see my way of life disappear. But a policy of making the peoples of the world believe what we believe through might is inherently wrong.

Like most people in my nation I have no idea what to believe. I have no concept as to whether I should support my country's activities or denounce them. I read as many newspapers as I can and watch all the major news channels on television but I still can't decide what is right and what is wrong. I guess it is now our times to have history judge us as a society remembering that history has proven itself to be unforgiving.

You go on to state that Iraq is an immediate and real threat to world peace. For the past 60 years the United Nations has kept us out of world war through diplomacy and in some cases military action. But, a world body, not a single nation, has always made this military action. If the UN wishes to remain relevant in world affairs it must continue to follow this philosophy.

It seems that our government has become obsessed with the notion that we are the determining factor in the future history of our world. It is taking advantage of this concept by eliminating some of our basic freedoms, exchanging dreams with fears, and attempting to put its values on the rest of the world through might instead of right. I apologize for the length of my response. There are many concepts about why our government is yearning for war that I would love to talk to you about. Maybe we can talk soon. I hope all is well with you and your family.

Peace.

Jim

It took only a few hours for my neighbor to write me back concerning the problems he saw with my arguments. He responded:

Hi Jim,

We can discuss, but I do not see much hope for agreement. In my view you are desperate to find a peaceful solution at any price. In my view, peace and any price is not worth the price. Your historical arguments are factual but are also irrelevant. To argue that war with Iraq will somehow be illegal is a nonsequitur. Presidents since John Adams have ordered American forces into harm's way without Congressional approval. This is not the system that the framers of the Constitution envisioned, but it is the one that ample precedent supports.

The current President did seek and gain approval of his policies. Perhaps not a formal declaration of war, but certainly very sufficient to be considered legitimate given the overwhelming historical precedent of presidential prerogative in issues of national security.

Your analogies to other regimes are nonsequiters. North Korea is a poor, crazy, hermit nation. Their nitwit dictator has no megalomania cal plan beyond his own borders. The Saudis are an odious regime. They have made a Faustian bargain with their religious zealots to be able to continue to enjoy their lavish wealth. The former Shah of Iran was a dictator with grand views of his self-importance only within his own borders.

Saddam Hussein is quite different. He sees himself as a modern day Alexander, despite his many defeats. But he does not think he has ever been defeated, if he survives, her wins, in his twisted mind. He may have only tenuous, if any, links to Bin Laden. He without question has deep links to Hamas. We can deal with him now or we can deal with him later. If later, the price to pay in blood and misery will only be greater.

I do see a distinct parallel to 1937. The Czechs were ready to fight Hitler. They had a small but well trained and motivated army. They needed the support of the British and the French and were entitled to this by treaty obligations. You know the rest of the story, Chamberlain did not see any need to risk British young men for a small country that was far, far away. And when war came 2 years later, the price paid was so enormously greater.

Is the UN relevant? Well, in all honesty, not very much and it is about to squander what little relevancy it has left thanks to the French and Russians. The Security Council unanimously gave Saddam one last chance but now, thanks to these 'allies' appears to be ready to welsh on that warning. It may be good to let the UN pass, as it sees no contradictions in having Libya chair a committee regarding human rights or having Iraq join a disarmament committee through normal country rotation. The French have a veto in the Security Council because in 1945 it was convenient to act as if France had been part of the great WWII coalition, when in fact France was the only Nazi defeated nation to sign a peace treaty and then collaborate with der Furher. And of course Russia has its veto as its inheritance from the Soviet Union.

This is a good place to digress a bit - why are Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania all supporting the US in the UN? This despite Chirac's suggestion that they "shut up"? Could it be that they all have very fresh memories of their liberation from Soviet domination? A liberation that was only made possible by the steadfast, continued strength and determination of the western alliance, dominated by the USA, to oppose and challenge the Soviets?

And it is interesting to note that, even if very discretely, both Jordan and Saudi are supporting us, in addition to the Persian Gulf states. And notice how mute Iran has been?

Finally, the analogy to Viet Nam is a non sequitur as well. There were no vital interests of this nation at stake. The folly of several administrations was to think that a limited, protracted 'war' with no objective and no defined set of victory conditions could be sustained.

Even though you do not admire our current President, rest assured, if our forces are committed to Iraq, that overwhelming force will be employed to achieve total victory - Iraq without Saddam Hussein ands his fascist Baath Party.

A number of young people from York are in the Persian Gulf in uniform. Probably former students of yours are overseas now as well. Some of them may not return. This is a heavy burden for us all to bear. I could not bear it if I knew I was giving comfort and aid to the enemy. And the Polly Anna efforts to find peace and any price are doing just this.

Jim E.

Click to continue