|
It was wonderful to read the article ‘Arts Education Benefits Literacy,’ by Dr. Jim Uphoff about the importance of the arts in education. I also want the arts to remain important in Oakwood schools and Ohio.
Both my elementary and secondary art teachers at the Worthington schools gave me encouragement for art appreciation and to major in fine arts. I am proud to have been an early active Picture Lady and art historian for that important program at Smith School.
As Picture Lady’s art historian, I increased the number of portfolios for significant women artists. Trying to further the students’ art knowledge. I introduced new portfolios of the art forms sculpture and architecture, while maintaining and emphasizing more use of music. It was an enjoyment to share new ideas with the other Picture Ladies. While maintaining the old files, I added their ideas and new information. We even had a portfolio on several illustrators that the Picture Ladies wanted. Because of it, Smith School possesses and original small duck drawing and soap carvings by author/illustrator Robert McCloskey, my relative.
When I left volunteering at Smith School in 1992, the soap carvings were in Smith’s library. I would put them on display with a few of Bob’s children’s books. He made them in 1936 for my aunt’s first grade class in Hamilton, Ohio.
In ten years, I witnessed Picture Lady grow and teach the children at Smith the importance of art history to their lives. It is a pleasure to know contemporary programs continue to benefit the children’s aesthetic and academic needs.
Ann C. Bell
In a May 4, 2006 Q & A hosted by the Southern Center for International Studies, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked several leading questions by a retired CIA analyst, one Mr. Ray McGovern. At one point Mr. McGovern said:
“And so I would like to ask you to be up-front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties?“
I would like to address Mr. McGovern’s question, because it is one heard frequently these days.
First, I assume Mr. McGovern is referring to the intelligence gathered concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). I would like to point out that it is a documented fact that Saddam gassed his own people in 1988. Over five thousand died. Ergo, Saddam is guilty. Whether or not he had any WMDs remaining is, therefore, irrelevant.
Second, as to the war being unnecessary…perhaps that question is best answered by asking one in return:
“Do you think the French should have invaded the Rhineland in 1935 after Hitler tore up the treaty of Versailles?”
Because the casual reader may not see the connection, let us examine the events which led to World War II. Let us see if there are any parallels with events which led to the decision to forcibly depose Saddam. Then we will be in a better position to make judgments about the necessity of the war.
Step back in time…to 1933. Adolf Hitler had become dictator of Germany. He spent most of the next two years setting the Nazi house in order, so to speak - consolidating his hold on Germany. Not until 1935 was he in a position to begin serious rebuilding of the German armed forces. Concurrent with this effort was his first challenge to the Allied nations.
Hitler didn’t burst onto the world stage at full military strength. In March 1935, he announced to the world that Germany would push aside the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and build a conscripted army of 500,000 men and began building heavy armaments—artillery, aircraft, submarines and more.
By the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies - in practical terms, France and Britain - had every right to march their armies into Germany and put a stop to Hitler’s shenanigans. At that point in time it would have been relatively easy to do so, because France alone still possessed the mightiest army in the world—over 100 well-trained army divisions replete with armor, artillery, air and logistical support.
Hitler’s forces were puny by comparison, basically poorly-trained, poorly-equipped paramilitary groups like the Sturm Abteilung (the “Brownshirts”), and very few regular military—no match for France. This was the Allies’ first chance to put a stop to Hitler. But, against this overt act of defiance, the only action the French and British could manage was a letter to the League of Nations - which promptly appointed a committee to study the matter.
Hitler’s next challenge came one year later. In March 1936 Hitler ordered troops into the Rhineland, i.e. the western portion of Germany between the Rhine River and the borders of France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The militarization of this land was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to maintain a buffer zone between Germany and France. In fact, Allied troops had occupied the land until 1930 as part of that treaty. Hitler’s year of re-armament work had not put much muscle on the German military frame. The Reichswehr (German National Defense) now consisted of four (4) divisions, three of which were ordered into the region at Hitler’s behest by some very nervous generals. The German top brass had good reason to be nervous: the French army was vastly superior in every respect and could have easily overrun them. In fact, the generals had orders to retreat quickly if the French army marched against them. But—despite this huge military advantage—as was the case the year before, the French did not act. Likewise, the British were of no mind to enforce the terms of Versailles. As it turned out, this was the last relatively easy opportunity for the Allies to stop Hitler. And they let it slip away.
In the following years before the war, the Allies still had several chances to stop Hitler. The next was during the Anschluss (“union”) - the shotgun wedding between Germany and Austria - in March 1938. Despite having signed a non-interference pact with Austria in 1936, Hitler engineered the downfall of the Austrian government and moved troops in, ostensibly to “keep the peace” which had actually been violated by rioting Nazis. To be sure, Allied interference at that point would no doubt have meant war with Germany. But the price at that point still paled in comparison with what was to come. Again, the Allies could manage no stronger action than a few official protests.
Yet another chance presented itself in September 1938 when Hitler began his campaign to overrun Czechoslovakia. In the Sudetenland (northern Czechoslovakia) resided some three million Germans. Hitler began by first demanding their autonomy and later for annexation with German military occupation. As this region contained most of the Czech industrial base and the strongest of its military fortifications, the loss of the region meant that the Czechs would face German troops on three fronts. When Hitler stirred the Sudeten Germans into an insurrection against the Czech government, it was quickly crushed. At this point, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made his infamous attempt to appease Hitler—only to be duped into thinking he had negotiated “peace in our time”. The Czechs were in effect ‘sold out’ by the Allies, despite treaty guarantees of security from Britain, France and the Soviet Union.
The first Allied nation to come to its senses was Britain. She declared war on Germany shortly after the invasion of Poland in September 1939. This set the stage for the final “easy” chance to stop Hitler. While the situation in Poland was desperate, on the western front things were tranquil. The situation on the western front was humorously termed the “Sitzkrieg”. French and (the very few) German troops at the border idly watched each other and even applauded each other’s soccer matches10. Hitler’s invasion of Poland had left a skeleton crew on the western front. He had calculated - correctly - that the Allies would again do nothing. Events in France had sapped her economic strength, and her will to fight was gone. Much of her military preparations had been defensive (the formidable but unmoving Maginot Line). And Britain was almost totally self-disarmed (as was the USA). Thus, the Allies missed a golden opportunity to hit the Nazis at their weak front.
After the conquest of Poland and the signing of a non-aggression pact with Stalin, Hitler turned hungry eyes to the west. The Wehrmacht rolled through the France and Benelux countries in six weeks in May-June 1940 and forced a last-gasp evacuation of badly beaten British troops at Dunkirk.
From a humble beginning in 1933, Hitler built the Nazi war machine to the point that it took the blood and treasure of the free world (and the Soviet Union) over five years to stop it.
World War II has been called the Great War. And while it is true that several generations in America and elsewhere arose and made the sacrifices required to “refresh the tree of liberty” (thank you, Mr. Jefferson), it is also true that early action by the Allies may well have stopped Hitler before he got started - at far less sacrifice.
The parallels with the war in Iraq are reasonably obvious:
1. Treaty violations by Saddam. By right of treaty (UN resolutions) and as a result of Saddam’s crimes against humanity, we had the casus belli to depose him…as did the Allies in 1935-40 when Hitler repeatedly broke the terms of the treaties of Versailles and Locarno. The oft-used objection that Iraq was not vital to American interests rings hollow. To wit: the British decided in 1935 that the Rhineland was not vital to their national interests and thus decided not to act against Hitler. In reality, when the Germans moved into the Rhineland, it rendered worthless the security pacts between France and Russia, made Austria easy pickings for the Nazis, and increased Hitler’s international stature many times over. Likewise, Saddam grew in stature and power each time the UN failed to act when its resolutions were broken.
2. The inability to contain the enemy - ”But we had Saddam all bottled up”. Did we? The recent investigations into the oil-for-food scandal shows he was quickly and secretly amassing the treasure he needed to rebuild his strength. And it can be done in a real hurry - and quietly - as Hitler showed the world. And the collective will of the Coalition nations was certainly not sufficient to maintain the “No Fly” zones indefinitely.
3. Crimes against humanity - Saddam, like Hitler, was guilty of genocide against his countrymen. This has been common knowledge for nearly two decades. We are still uncovering mass graves in Iraq. Hitler had a bigger machine for his “final solution”, and the Allies were unaware of his unspeakable horrors until late in the war. In this respect, the only differences between Hitler and Saddam were those of scale.
4. The threat…we have found that Saddam had every intent of rebuilding his WMDs - the work was in progress. And he had already committed genocide (for which there is no statute of limitations). So it was only reasonable to conclude he would probably stage a repeat performance.
Lessons
World War II offers invaluable lessons for those who profess to love liberty. A few of them are:
Treaties - unless the enforcing nations are willing to step up and pay the price of enforcement when treaties (or UN resolution) are violated, they should not enter into them. This must be a long-lasting commitment.
Sanctions - are useful only in the short term and are nearly impossible to enforce over the long haul. They cannot be counted on to keep dictators and tyrants in check.
Diplomacy - is useless without backing of sufficient force and the resolve to use it, despite the risks that such action may bring . Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” principle applies.
Military force - must be available in sufficient quantity and quality (especially in terms of readiness and flexibility). The idea that a democracy should disarm after a war ends is tantamount to disaster, because peace is, in reality, only the time between wars in which the enemies of liberty re-arm to threaten again.
Pacifism - specifically, the unwillingness to fight for liberty—does not stem aggression. On the contrary, as history has shown, it invites aggression. Whether or not one lives in harmony with family, neighbors and co-workers has no influence over tyrants who want us subservient or dead.
Security threats - much has been made to the effect that we acted prematurely against Saddam because he did not pose an imminent threat. But history shows that waiting until a threat is imminent is tantamount to surrender..
Conclusion
We cannot say for certain that a military response to Hitler’s early aggression would have spelled his demise. But we can say for certain that doing nothing meant the deaths of perhaps fifty million people. Likewise, we cannot say for certain that deposing Saddam will bring liberty to Iraq. But - and here is the point - they have a chance!! A chance brought about because America and her coalition partners moved against Saddam. We can say for certain that doing nothing would have invited more years of tyranny for Iraqis and more security risks for the rest of the world.
Was the war in Iraq necessary? By the test of history, the answer is a resounding “YES”.
Theodore L. Reinhart
References
DoD News: Remarks by Secretary Rumsfeld at Southern Center for international Studies. May 11, 2006. http: //www.defenselink.mil /transcripts/2006/tr20060504-12979.html. Pulled 5/11/2006.
“Did Saddam Gas the Kurds?” by Juan Cole. History News Network . 2-04-03. Pulled 8/17/06. http: //hnn.us/articles/1242.html.
“He Has Gassed His Own People.” History News Network. 7-16-02. Pulled 8/17/06. http: //hnn.us/articles/862.html
Shirer, William L. The Nightmare Years: 1930-1940. Little, Brown &Co. 1984. Page 215.
ibid., p.218
ibid., pp. 241-242
ibid., p. 248
ibid., p. 302
ibid., p. 341
ibid., p. 463
Brendon, Piers. The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s. Vintage Books, 2002. pp. 343-344.
History Today Volume 42, Oct. 10, 1992, pp.15-15. Pulled 7/31/2006. www.amersol.edu.pe/_dmunro/ib/articles/ww2_5.htm
top of page
|
