The March of Folly

Posted 3:56 p.m., Oct. 29, 2006

---

|

---

Kevblog Note: The column that follows was originally published in the El Cajon, Calif., newspaper, the Daily Californian on Jan. 17, 1991--the day the United States and its allies attacked the forces of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait at the start of the first Gulf War. I was 25 at the time I wrote this piece, and some of that youthful naivete shines through--particularly in the overwrought assertion that anyone can obtain nuclear weapons with just a bit of spare cash. Fortunately, it turns out to be significantly harder than that, A.Q. Kahn notwithstanding. Also, as it turned out, we got to test Saddam's ability to survive in the face of long-term sanctions--and he did just fine, only his country suffered. I was wrong about that, as I turned out to be wrong on several counts in the article.

Often, when a writer reviews old work, it can be a punishing experience. And this one is not stated precisely as I would say it today, with the benefit of a bit of added maturity. But when I came across this old article recently while reorganizing my career archives, I was struck by how well it stands up, and how pertinent some of these observations remain today--particularly its conclusion that we would fight this war again, regardless of its outcome.

On that basis, I thought I'd share it with my Web readers.

...

This War Won't Be Conclusive, Either

I realize I'm about to flare some tempers here, and I wonder if it's really worthwhile. For all the effect my words will have on our new war, I may as well be talking to the walls of my studio.

Call it a tonic for my own emotions.

I have a very basic thesis about war, though hardly an original one. For many reasons both moral and practical, offensive war as an instrument of foreign policy has become obsolete. Worse, it ensures the eventual destruction of our species.

Think hard: What was the last war you can think of that had a conclusive ending, that didn't simply lead to another war?

The closest example I can think of is Vietnam, an essentially defensive and nationalistic struggle by a country besieged for generations, a revolutionary war won by an enemy of the United States.

Even in that case, however, the result was that Vietnam, a broken nation geared for little more than warfare, soon invaded neighboring Cambodia. "Waging a war is simple," former North Vietnamese military leader Pham Van Dong was to say. "Running a country is very difficult."

So we are discovering, as our politics stagnates, our economy fades. This may prove an unwise period in our history to launch into a long conflict.

Like everyone, I've watched this thing unfold pretty carefully, and I haven't heard a good stated reason to start shooting. Here's what I have heard. To wit:

• "We as a nation cannot permit this kind of naked aggression."

That's a variation on the old (failed) domino theory, and it falls to scrutiny. If our role is to stop naked aggression, then where were we when China invaded Vietnam in 1979, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia later that year, when South Africa invaded Angola, when Egypt and Israel were invading one another, when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, Afghanistan and Lithuania?

Who decides when to step in and under what circumstances? That one doesn't work for me. Of course, there is always:

• "Saddam Hussein is a madman who has gassed and tortured his own people. He must be stopped before he becomes the next Hitler."

We don't want to encourage despotism, but if this is truly the case, why didn't we stop Idi Amin Dada, Doc Duvalier, the Shah of Iran, Augustus Pinochet? Why have we, in this crisis, wrapped an arm around the shoulder of the notorious Hafez al-Assad of Syria, a man who once leveled a city in his own country, killing 20,000 people? A man who is the likely candidate for next Middle Eastern Public Enemy No. 1.

And then there's:

• "Hussein might get his hands on nuclear weapons, and already has 27 pounds of enriched uranium to build them."

True, and that's not a good thing. But look at it this way: The New York Times in 1976 reported the shocking fact that several tons of enriched uranium were missing from the stockpiles of American nuclear power plants.

If I really wanted to, and had the cash, I could get my hands on a nuclear bomb. and so could you. You could kill me, but there are a lot more nuts like me out there. You'll never get us all. And then the classic:

• "Sanctions have not worked."

A country loses 50 percent of its GNP in five months, and that means sanctions have been ineffective? How long could Hussein have possibly hung on had sanctions continued? How will we ever know?

The only thing I've heard the war is not about is oil, which of course is the only thing the war is about.

That, frankly, makes me angry. For eight years of Ronald Reagan, this country built bigger cars, refused to consider regulations that might have forced development of alternative fuels, essentially did nothing to prevent the sittuation we are in. And that's the fault of us all. Our addiction to petroleum is possibly our greatest national tragedy, second only to our addiction to warfare.

Hannah Arendt once wrote that resorting to violence for political ends is to admit the failure of political power, clearly true in the cases of both Bush and Hussein. Both bluffed, neither flinched, believing the other eventually would. Now the game's up.

For our part, the United States has long played the role of counterrevolutionary in what is an increasingly revolutionary world, a role that, if we are to hold fast to it, will commit us to continue to fight more of these ambiguous wars.

Even if it is true, as Tom Brokaw is telling me as I write, that we have wiped out Hussein's air force and possibly thwarted his entire gambit, it doesn't change things that much. There will still be oil in the Persian Gulf, there will still be greed, and we will fight again.

Does this war, then, promise a conclusive result? Is it really worth losing our men and women, and committing homicide on helpless civilians in the name of preserving the freedom of an autocratic nation like Kuwait?

I've got to believe that it isn't.

-- Kevin Featherly
The Daily Californian
Jan. 17, 1991

---

|

---

Share with a friend:

---

Visit the Kevblog archive.

---

---