Topic awaiting preservation: "The Arrogance of Power" (Page 1 of 1)

It has been quite some time. A lot may have forgotten me, and the majority probably doesn?t even know me. I came across a tiny article in the New York Times (a speech by Senator Robert C. Byrd) and needed to share it with someone. For some reason the folks at the old asylum were the first to come to mind, and while I am unaware of the majority perspective on the war with Iraq and the general discontent in the world right now, I hope someone enjoys it as much as I did...


"The Arrogance of Power"

Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd, delivered on 19 March 2003

I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Edit... Now as far as the content of the article, I strongly disagree with it.

And that is where I stand.

[This message has been edited by eyezaer (edited 03-30-2003).]

In this case please explain why you are disagreeing with this article. I can't find anything false !

This article stated better than I was able to do the fact that this war would bring much more problems than advantages to the USA. As you maybe became aware of that, the point of this article is not to say that USA shouldn't have gone to war. The point is to say that the way to do it was absolutely wrong.

This article is entirely right on the consequences of this war. I can witness it in France, there is some sort of resignation about standing against the war now that the USA began it. But there is also an huge missatifaction, an huge scorn and disdain about the USA. It's not like the critiscisms we experienced from USA for refusing this war, it's... deepier and more serious.

One of the problems of this war is that USA wanted to justify it at the ONU. I would say that was necessary for any war... However, the USA ridiculed the ONU by starting this war without his acknowledgement. And furthermore, the USA wanted to justify this war to the eyes of the world by stating it would be a clean war (like if any war would be clean...) and very quick (look at the situation in Iraq...). None of the things they said has been prooved. Was it prooved that the Iraq owned mass destruction weapons ? Was it prooved that, if it owned such weapons, it would use them against the USA ? I don't think so. The USA are discredited because they broke international laws, the same laws they wanted every country of the world to respect.

I don't know if the problem comes from the American president, from the governement, or from the public opinion. I don't live in the USA and I can't state about that. But you must agree that the USA are breaking rules they applied during years. So, what changed in the USA ? I don't think they are the same USA than 10 years ago...

Anyway, I stand with the autor of this article. It was perfect.

I also cannot find anything to disagree with in this statement. Very well said...though sadly, I am quite sure that somehow this will be turned around on him to say that he is unpatriotic and anti-american.

And yes, it has been an awfully long time - good to see you around.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-30-2003).]

A good thing is that this article is published in the popular newspaper, the same newspaper that willingly encouraged the hatred towards France... I hope that means a change in the opinions.

The media will put anything in that the people are talking about. It's not like they tried to make people hate France, it's just that was the story people wanted to read about at the time.

In case you didn't know, American's, in general, tend to forget things within two hours of reading it, and within thirty minutes of watching it on TV.



As far as this article is concerned, I think it is a good sumation of all the things wrong with President What's his name and his cabinet. Though I understand that they are trying to rid the world of all this chaotic mess, they need to make sure that the world wants this to be done. I do support what they are attempting to do, I just hope it doesn't have the exact oppesite reation and end up causing even more chaos, as the article by Mr. Byrd suggests. I guess like everything, we can come up with different opinions and different sides to every story and every war, but in the long run we just have to wait and see what will happen.


Ozone Quotes

Taking everything he said at face value, I can't disagree with most of it either. I certainly disagree with it's tone and characterizations, however. As a member of the "opposition" party here, I'm sure he see's it his duty to slam the current leadership every chance he gets. Believe me, if the political parties were reversed right now, there would be scathing criticism coming from Republicans towards Democrats just like when we attacked Kosovo.

There is something that bothers me about this opinion. It seems to suggest that the USA should only do what the world consensus agrees to. I think back to all the things that either would or would not have been done based on that criterion.

It would seem to me that we were faced with basically two scenarios:
1. We listened and followed world opinion and were intensely hated around the world.
2. We listened but did not follow world opinion and were intensely hated around the world.

MS, where did you see a US promise that the war would be "clean"? Are you sure that was not just an assumption?

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

MS, where did you see a US promise that the war would be "clean"? Are you sure that was not just an assumption?

---

Well, it's maybe my interpretation of the facts. Nevertheless, I heard many many times members of the American governement saying that : "the war will be very quick", "the Americans will not encounter any resistance", "there will be no casualties", "the Iraqi people will revolt itself against Shaddam Hussein". They constantly said it, repeated it, on any media. At least this is what we French heard from the news.

I believe this was some sort of justification sent to the world, like if the USA were justifying or legalizing their war. However, look now at the situation in Iraq. Everything went wrong, and nothing of the things the governement predicted happened. I don't think the Pentagon generals are dumbs. I think that they knew it would happen in this way. I believe they knew that this war would last for months, and that there would be deaths. It's just that they didn't wanted to say it.

Which soldiers would go to war if they knew that it would be long and really dangerous ?

Which country would support the USA in a war that would cause collateral dammages and innocent deaths ?

Justifying this war by saying it would be clean, willingly knowing the contrary, this is not something I can really appreciate.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, I heard many many times members of the American governement saying that : "the war will be very quick"

---

how long do you think wars are supposed to be? on any sort of historical timeline this has been an extremely short conflict so far, even if it does last another few months that's not very long as wars go. also, i think we have seen some evidence of the people revolting against saddam in places.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

What I find so funny is that so many people seemed to *really* think that by quick, it was meant that we'd go in and destroy everything in about a day and be on our way back home.

People forget that just because our military is rich and tecnologically advanced, it doesn't mean we have an automatic win. Underfunded and and under trained armies have defeated well trained well equipped armies in the past (that's kinda how america became america in the first place...)

Well, the next time someone tells you war is either clean, quick, bloodless, or excellent for shining hard wood floors please read a history book first before you believe them.

I would also be interested to see any quote you can find from any military official that said, "the Americans will not encounter any resistance" or "there will be no casualties". Then I would like to see that person relieved of duty for making such a ridiculous statement.

I don't agree at all with your characterization that everything has gone wrong. But I do very much agree with you that the Pentagon knew roughly how the war would progress. It is true we had hoped more Iraqis would defect and surrender quickly but that is not to say we did not plan for success even if they didn't.

I'm not going to tell you any specific military person made such a comment, but I'm going to chime it to say that at least from my position, the general spin I heard -- from the media, from the man in the street -- was that we were going to perform some expert masterstroke of overwhelming yet precise warcraft, and magically win within a week or two. Factual? Certainly not. But it's what the American public pretty much believed, and therefore the misconception is significant. That we have not had a miraculous instant victory has energized the opposition and demoralized the home front -- the latter is important because financial markets are being very heavily influenced by the war.

And this

quote:

---

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

---

pretty much sums it up for me...I (and many veterans like me, and those who have died, protecting the rights we enjoy). Also, I think the situation of Kosovo was much different than that of Iraq...there was a program of Genecide going on, and they were well documented. I don't really consider what we (along with our coalition forces) did in Kosovo as an Attack...or invasion. One remembers, that there was no military governor installed, afterwards...and the UN was involved, especially afterwards.

I quite agree with the article. Nice words...too bad there is no 'weight' behind them...


WebShaman

Kosovo not an attack? We acted *without* UN sanction and there are still troops there to this day. I am not sure I understand why you were ok with that one and not this one given the lack of UN sanction for both.

quote:

---

What I find so funny is that so many people seemed to *really* think that by quick, it was meant that we'd go in and destroy everything in about a day and be on our way back home.

Well, the next time someone tells you war is either clean, quick, bloodless, or excellent for shining hard wood floors please read a history book first before you believe them.

---

DL, I didn't say that 12 days were long. But I remember hearing members of the governement saying that this would in fact last maybe a few months... And that's no *so* quick.

Bugimus, I was not speaking for myself. I didn't believe it, and on the contrary that got me upset. I was thinking about the Americans. A lot of Americans trusted that, and here is the problem. Abusing of people in this way saddens me. And viewing that half of the Americans think the attack on the WTC are dued to Saddam Hussein saddens me too. There is a big problem of medias in the USA I think.

quote:

---

I don't agree at all with your characterization that everything has gone wrong.

---

I did not said exactly that. My point was to show that everything the governement said has gone wrong. Otherwise, I think the situation in Iraq is like the generals thought it would be. But many people don't seem to be aware of that they were fooled.

Ok Bugs, I'll address your points - first of all, there was a war on...we just jumped in, to stop the Genicide...this is much different than an attack, or invasion. It was also threatening to 'spill over' into the rest of Europe.

Second, no ground troops...an air war cannot be called an invasion.

Third, the war was waged with NATO members...

No, no UN Security Council resolution, that's true, to go to war...but, the UN did help out afterwards...and troops from many different lands are still there, including Germany.

So, when compared to Iraq, it is not similar at all.

And I never said that I was against a war with Iraq (eliminate Saddam)...I said that I was against the current conflict (especially against how the Bush Administration is running it). There is a huge difference...and, as it is turning out, my instincts were correct.

Also, the backgrounds between the two are much, much different. And you have a united NATO in one, and a split NATO in the other. Iraq does not promise (before the conflict) to 'spill out' into its neighbors...that was namely soundly demonstrated in the Gulf War. Also, the situation in Iraq hadn't quite reached the point of the end of diplomacy...even though we both know it would have probably reached the same conclusion...war.

The reasons for the wars are very different.

The war in Kosovo did have a stabilitating effect on the area...thank god. One cannot assume the same in Iraq...in fact, it may have the opposite effect.

We lost less men and women in uniform in Kosovo.

There are many other reasons, as well...but I think that suffices.