Mike Farrell
I found this this morning....
Message from Mike
Mike asked me to post the following in reply to all the messages concerning "Win Without War"
Hi Squiggy,
Well, you've certainly been busy with all the fuss that's been kicked up! I hope it hasn't been too wearing on you.
Because there have been so many messages recently about my position on the situation vis-à-vis the U.S. and Iraq I simply can't reply to them all individually, so I thought I'd send one general message that you can post. That way anyone who chooses to can read a reply of sorts.
First of all, I want to make it clear, again, that this site is yours. You thought it up, you created it, you run it, you make the choices about it and that's as it should be. I say that primarily because I've seen some objections to an apparent decision on your part to disallow foul language. That is certainly your right and I applaud you for exercising it. There's no reason that you or any of the visitors should have to be subjected to crude expressions of ignorance and anger from some who are upset by things I do or say.
As to the many messages,let me first express my appreciation to all of those who have written in support of the position I've taken with regard to the Administration's threats of war on Iraq. As you've seen in many of the negative messages, it's hard for some people to understand that dissent is not only the right of a citizen in a free society, it is the duty of one who believes that a policy is wrong. A Member of Congress over a hundred years ago said "My country right or wrong. When right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." Too many Americans seem to know the first five words but conveniently forget the last six
As far as the negative responses are concerned, let me try to deal with them in a general way rather than respond to specifics. The name calling, of course, is just a sign of ignorance and isn't worth consideration or response. All the cheap shots at "celebrities" and assumptions about the lifestyle of people in show business certainly fall into that category as well, so enough said.
It is worth noting, though, that the media tends to gather 'round and pay particular attention to the actions and statements of those whom they consider celebrities, and whether they're right or not it has to be assumed that they do so because they believe that people pay attention to what those folks have to say (or to what they're wearing or eating or driving, or who they're dating, etc.). That fact, and it has been demonstrated often enough to be considered a fact, was what motivated us to gather the names and attendance of so many people in the industry to gain attention to our statement.
That calculation arose from our observation that the media had been playing a cheerleading game with President Bush's war plans and has been ignoring or minimizing the voices of thoughtful people who had another point of view. Our sense was that a group of well-known people from our industry making known their concerns would not only break through the media, but it might also encourage other communities to speak out about their own concerns. And it has certainly succeeded in that regard.
In another area, a number of people who wrote in seem to cling to the belief that anyone who disagrees with a President or a policy is somehow lacking in patriotism. I think I've addressed that above, but will only add that the suggestion made, implying that one who criticizes or disagrees with the President's policy hates this country or hates the military or is being disloyal to either, represents a hopelessly narrow view and is antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for. I think those who want to claim that I love Iraq and hate America or that I believe Saddam is telling the truth and trust him over President Bush fall into the same category. Either that or they simply aren't paying attention.
As far as the substance of my disagreement with the Bush Administration's policies in this area is concerned, I think perhaps some of the critics don't know a bit of history that is important. They, along with a number of Americans, want to connect the terrorist attacks on 9/11 with this action, believing that Saddam Hussein is somehow connected to the attacks. That's understandable, of course, because Mr. Bush has been selling that connection as best he can. The problem is that there is no evidence to support it. And what some don't know is that a few of those close to President Bush - who are now pressing for war - wrote a document ten years ago calling for a U.S. war in Iraq, the elimination of Saddam Hussein and our takeover of the country in order to create a democracy in the region that we can control. That is an important piece of information for people to consider when they decide whether it's a necessary thing to send our troops to possible death and put at risk tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens on a trumped-up basis now.
The document, by the way,is now in the form of a doctrine and was authored by a man named Paul Wolfowitz, who is now in the Defense establishment. It is supported by Richard Perle and others, including, I believe, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. It's available if anyone wants to look for it.
This point of view (and interestingly most of those close to President Bush who support it and argue that this war is necessary and appropriate have never served in the military - they are referred to by many in the military establishment as "chicken hawks.") is opposed by great numbers of people in the military establishment and in the State Department.
If any of those who are so critical of my position would care to do so, they can find out more about this opposition by looking up the statements of Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who up until the year 2000 was in charge of the military's Central Command and thus had military control over the Middle East. He believes, as do I, that a war on Iraq is not only not necessary, it will be counterproductive. It will inflame the poor in the Middle East into believing what the radicals are telling them, namely that the U.S. is conducting a war against Islam. That, in turn, will increase terrorism and, I believe, cost many more American lives.
Another person they can look up is Ambassador Joe Wilson, the last American official to speak to Saddam Hussein personally. He also agrees with my position and has offered to appear on television with me to counter the Administration's propaganda.
General Wesley Clarke, former head of NATO is also opposed to the Bush policy.
There are others, of course. Edward Peck, former Ambassador to Iraq, signed our statement. Admiral Eugene Carroll of the U.S. Navy signed and appeared at the press conference with us. Admiral Jack Shanahan signed as well, as did former Ambassador to NATO Jonathan Dean and Steve Robinson, an Army veteran who heads a group of Gulf War veterans who oppose this war..
As you see, it was not just a bunch of empty-headed, self-important celebrities spouting a bunch of silliness, as some would like to think. It was a group of concerned citizens making known their views on an issue about which they have grave concerns and about which they have made it their business to know a good deal.
And no one is apologizing for Saddam Hussein. We all understand that he is a villain. I believe he is a war criminal and deserves to be brought before an international criminal court. But I don't believe that there is justification for the United States of America to launch a pre-emptive military strike against him. That would violate the U.N. Charter, it would contradict many years of American tradition and history, it would kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and who knows how many of our own military personnel, and it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars that could and should be better spent on solving problems here at home
Oddly, with all the talk about Iraq and the dangers Saddam "may" pose, the Administration seems content to deal diplomatically with North Korea, which admits it has nuclear weapons, and expresses no great concern about Iran's nuclear power plants. The focus on Iraq, given the realities in the world, makes one wonder what the hidden agenda might be.
Meanwhile, the U.N. inspectors are now in Iraq doing their jobs. Their mandate says that they are to find any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein may possess and destroy them. So far they are getting full cooperation from the Iraqi Government and they are finding nothing meaningful. When and if that changes they will continue to do their job. If they meet with opposition there are steps short of warfare that can be taken to deal with any problems that may arise.
War must be the last resort, not the first one. Mr. Bush's advisors - the 'chicken hawks' - are pushing him very hard and those in the Administration who are opposing them need to be supported, in my view, by all thinking Americans.
We need to ensure that the focus of our efforts remains on rooting out the terrorists who do exist and do intend to do us harm. And we should also be working to eliminate the causes of terrorism, such as poverty, ignorance and the kind of arrogant exploitation of people and resources that we have, sadly, been guilty of promoting for far too long.
I hope this answers some of the questions of those who were upset by my position. I assume it won't satisfy everyone, but I trust the even those who disagree will now have a somewhat more clear view of my position and the reasons I have for holding it.
Thanks.
Peace!
Mike
December 18, 2002
(c) Mike Farrell 2002