Keegan: If Churchill were alive today, he would strike at Saddam

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 08/29/2002 | John Keegan

[Pokey78]

The odour of appeasement that permeates the Western world has apparently driven President George W Bush to seek strength by studying the career of Winston Churchill.

Depressed by the warnings of his father's old friends against taking action against Iraq, he is looking for support in the life story of the supreme anti-appeaser. Churchill's refusal to be silenced by the peacemongers during Hitler's rise to power, a refusal all too painfully proved right when war came, sets an example President Bush finds reassuring.

If Churchill was right about Hitler, he seems to be asking, how can America be wrong about Saddam Hussein, a dictator who is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, a power Hitler never possessed?

The parallel is compelling, particularly to Americans, among whom Churchill, son of an American mother, continues to be venerated as perhaps he never was in his father's country.

But how right was Churchill? That is a two-part question, since Churchill's later life also divides into two. There were the wilderness years when, out of office in the 1930s, he railed against the complacency of ministers who refused to match Hitler's military spending.

There were the years as war leader, when he demanded "action this day" and sometimes seemed willing to support any scheme, however hare-brained, that promised blood and thunder.

General Sir Alan Brooke, Churchill's chief of staff, wrote that "Winston had 10 ideas every day, only one of which was good, and he did not know which it was". He saw his role as dissuading Churchill of his bad ideas and, occasionally, encouraging his rare good ones.

Churchill certainly had many bad ideas. He consistently overestimated Britain's strength and so dissipated what force it retained. Throughout the war, he was attracted to the idea of diversionary operations.

He wanted to invade Norway, which offers about the most difficult route to Berlin as is available in Europe. He persisted in the fantasy that Turkey could be drawn on to the Allied fight, a policy that the cautious Turks were determined to resist, as they did.

Some of his initiatives resulted in actual disaster, such as his insistence, against American advice in invading the Greek Dodecanese Islands in 1943. He also committed the cardinal military mistake on several occasions of reinforcing failure, as by his decision to land the 18th Division in Singapore in 1942. It disembarked into Japanese captivity.

The list of Churchill's mistakes could be extended. Militarily, he was a reckless romantic who had to be reined in, and Alan Brooke was right to do so. Nevertheless, as Brooke, a military realist of the highest intelligence, himself conceded, without Churchill the war could not have been won.

Churchill knew that wars are won only by taking action. As General Hollis, deputy chief of his private military office, put it, Churchill's attitude was that "it was all very well to say that everything had been thought of. The crux of the matter was - had anything been done?"

At the present time, President Bush must feel himself surrounded by men who think of everything - of how much America is disliked in the world, of how fragile is the hold it has on its so-called allies, of how unstable is the Middle East, of how unpredictable are the consequences of military action.

He is bombarded by advice from the conventionally wise who see danger on every hand. Some of them are military men who, as so often military men do and Churchill found, doubt the usefulness of force and counsel prudence or inaction altogether.

Churchill knew such people well. Fortunately, he had had his fill of them during the 1930s, when, while Hitler's strength grew year by year until it was unopposable, they argued that the economy could not stand the strain of rearmament and that, anyhow, concessions would buy peace.

When war came, and the defeat of 1940 brought him to power, he was ruthless with those who continued to argue that caution was the safer way. In May 1940, he listened for a few days to the arguments of Halifax for seeking a negotiated peace. As soon as he saw that the army could be got home from Dunkirk, he stopped his ears.

This is not, however, Dunkirk time and America is not a half-defeated Britain. It is the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known, perfectly capable of crushing any warmonger without risk to itself or to regional peace in any part of the world.

For President Bush, the crux indeed is not whether everything has been thought of, but whether something ought to be done - and, if so, what?

Something certainly should be done. Saddam is not Hitler. He is, unfortunately, quite as megalomaniac but, while currently much weaker than Hitler ever was, potentially able to achieve greater power than Hitler ever possessed.

When - it is not a question of if - Saddam acquires nuclear weapons, the moment when he could be crushed without risk to his opponents, or of provoking a wider war, or of truly destabilising the Middle East, will be gone. At the moment Saddam could be toppled quickly, cheaply and without difficulty. The moment will not last.

Churchill would see the opportunity and, if in power, would grasp it. He would ignore the timidity of yesterday's men and strike.

He would avoid by any means the need to make the speech that he was impelled to deliver to the Commons after Munich in 1938: "Do not suppose that this is the end. It is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first taste of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year unless, by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

Britain did arise, at terrible cost. It could not have arisen had Hitler acquired nuclear weapons. The signs are, thank goodness, that President Bush is determined not to fall.

[Pokey78]

A John Keegan MEGA PING!

[ex-snook]

LOL. Hitler has more incarnations than Elvis.

[Amelia]

Great article. I'd like to see a few more like it on this side of the pond.

[tet68]

Churchill's attitude was that "it was all very well to say that everything had been thought of. The crux of the matter was - had anything been done?"

This of course, is what the leftists and naysayers are counting on, that continued harping and open-ended argument will stop all action, until it is too late and Saddam HAS these weapons. At which time it will be ,"We can't attack him NOW! He's got WMD!" Why didn't Bush DO something!

Come on you know I'm right.

[AzJP]

Interesting parallel: Churchill came into power AFTER Hitler attacked foreign soil, if I understand the narrative here.

And Cheney certainly isn't the aide to stop Bush II from making frivolous mistakes.

I'm not convinced that either Bush(s) nor Churchill would have been wiser in the others shoes.

Brain stimulants are wonderful, and I'll try this on my breakfast crowd.....they opine on anything.

R.P.

[weikel]

No he would strike Saudi Arabia.

[Constitution Day]

Thanks for the ping.

"He is bombarded by advice from the conventionally wise who see danger on every hand. Some of them are military men who, as so often military men do and Churchill found, doubt the usefulness of force and counsel prudence or inaction altogether."

This sounds like a member of our current administration!
Now, I'm not going to call any names...

...but his initials are Colin Powell.

[sinkspur]

LOL. Hitler has more incarnations than Elvis.

And your boy Buchanan has admired every one of them.

[Gritty]

BTTT

[SunStar]

And Cheney certainly isn't the aide to stop Bush II from making frivolous mistakes.

The only frivolous mistake is President Bush's open appeasing of these Arab murderers like the Saudi prince this week. Pledging "eternal friendship" to our obvious enemy shows that the level of incompetence in this nation is unparalleled.

I guess it will take the detonation of a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil for our leaders to actually act on OUR interests, not those of the Europeans, Arabs and "internationalists".

[mrsmith]

Heck, even Thomas Jefferson might strike him:

Letter of Thomas Jefferson TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. (HENRY DEARBORN.) August 28, 1807
"...and as to those [ indians] who indicate contrary intentions, the preparations made should immediately look towards them; and it will be a subject for consideration whether, on satisfactory evidence that any tribe means to strike us, we shall not anticipate by giving them the first blow, before matters between us and, England are so far advanced as that their troops or subjects should dare to join the Indians against us.
It will make a powerful impression on the Indians, if those who spur them on to war, see them destroyed without yielding them any aid. To decide on this, the Governors of Michigan and Indiana should give us weekly information..."

[aculeus]

Bump for Keegan ... and sanity.

[theophilusscribe]

Ahhh . . . Churchill . . .

Excerpt from his first speech as Prime Minister
May 13, 1940
to House of Commons

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

"You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal.

"But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, 'come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.'"

You go, Winston!
 

[AzJP]

Well, the frivolous mistake I had in mind was last fall when Pres. Bush said he was gonna' go get Sadam.

Either he didn't grasp the enormity of the task, or he was just blowing air.

A wiser aide might have counseled to threaten to bomb Al Queda into prehistory, i.e. say he'd do something doable.

As it is, even normally pro-Americans are thinking Bush can't walk like he can talk.

Ah, politics. Might be fun to watch if it was some other country?

[MeekOneGOP]

Keegan: If Churchill were alive today, he would strike at Saddam

Excerpt:

The odour of appeasement that permeates the Western world has apparently driven President George W Bush to seek strength by studying the career of Winston Churchill.

Depressed by the warnings of his father's old friends against taking action against Iraq, he is looking for support in the life story of the supreme anti-appeaser. Churchill's refusal to be silenced by the peacemongers during Hitler's rise to power, a refusal all too painfully proved right when war came, sets an example President Bush finds reassuring.

If Churchill was right about Hitler, he seems to be asking, how can America be wrong about Saddam Hussein, a dictator who is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, a power Hitler never possessed?

The parallel is compelling, particularly to Americans, among whom Churchill, son of an American mother, continues to be venerated as perhaps he never was in his father's country.

< snip >

At the present time, President Bush must feel himself surrounded by men who think of everything - of how much America is disliked in the world, of how fragile is the hold it has on its so-called allies, of how unstable is the Middle East, of how unpredictable are the consequences of military action.

He is bombarded by advice from the conventionally wise who see danger on every hand. Some of them are military men who, as so often military men do and Churchill found, doubt the usefulness of force and counsel prudence or inaction altogether.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[TomB]

Heck, even Thomas Jefferson might strike him:

And let's not forget TJ and the Barbary Pirates. After all, he went to war with them to protect the greedy merchants (probably because they contributed to his campaign). ;-)

[MeekOneGOP]

Ping a few UK folks, just fyi........

[CJ Wolf]

"My Liberal opponents will tell you that this war is unjust and unnecessary. Now I say to you that their opposition, their unreasonable hampering of its prosecution from start to finish, have jeopardized the very roots of the empire. It must be fought to an indisputiable conclusion. Do you agree?" - Winston Churchill

[ninenot]

I don't hold a particular brief for Powell--but military men who have been in REAL action--as has Powell--also understand the very serious business of dead soldiers. Not real easy to tell Moms, wives, children.

War is hell. Some who have never been military, or who only see Schwarzenegger movies, think it's like video games. It ain't.