Some History
It’s always useful to put the great issues of our time into some sort of perspective. There are those who feel that history is a dry, dull subject, but had world leaders studied a little more of it, we might not be involved in so many nasty wars and bitter conflicts.
Those leaders who have the greatest need to study history are the ones at the head of the world’s most powerful governments. President Bush of the U.S. has spoken about
bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to the poor down-trodden nations of the world. But he wants to do it through the use of aggressive force and pre-emptive strikes. All of his policies during his presidency have been at odds with history – even the history of his own country. History shows that violence simply breeds more violence.
His belligerent and bellicose rhetoric has led only to war and has exacerbated violence and regional conflict around the world.
One of the few – perhaps the only modern U.S. President, who truly understood history
was John F. Kennedy. The story of his confrontation with The Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis shows his grasp of historic truth. His application of that truth shows a wise use of power, both in terms of tactics and strategy.
Had Bush studied the Kennedy years more carefully, the world might be a different place today.
In 1963, the renowned American journalist, Walter Lippman spoke in Paris.
Lippman pointed out that Kennedy prevailed in the confrontation with the Soviet Union, "…because,
having the power to achieve a limited objective, he had the wisdom to narrow his objective to what he had the power to achieve".
It was manifestly unthinkable to use nuclear weapons against Cuba. They had no relevance to the Cuban problem. It would have been an incalculable risk to invade and occupy Cuba at the risk of retaliatory military action against Berlin, action which could have escalated into nuclear war. The President adopted limited objectives which could be achieved by limited means. He demanded the removal of the Soviet strategic missiles. He did not demand the removal of the Castro regime or even of the Cuban defensive missiles".
Lippman pointed out that a major element in the successful resolution of the problem – which could have sparked a thermonuclear war, was this:
"…throughout the crisis, the two heads of government kept channels of personal and official communication open".
When the leader of a powerful nation sets out deliberately to provoke and humiliate another leader, the reactions of the humiliated one and his followers are likely to become uncontrollable. It is the business of wise, powerful leaders refrain from using the tactic of humiliation or the strategy of unnecessary provocation.
In the case of Iraq, Bush deliberately blocked all channels of communication. He used language that was both provocative and humiliating. And he allowed his belief in America’s vast military power to overcome his common sense.
As Lippman said in that Paris speech back in 1963,
"…prudence in seeking not to drive your opponent into a corner is not weakness and softness and appeasement. It is sanity and common sense and shows a due regard for human life."
