The past is prologue

(Read time: 5 minutes, articles 15 minutes)

“That was before I was born!”

Have you encountered this reply from a young person when attempting to discuss history?

What ARE history teachers teaching our children?

History is most enlightening when reviewed in the context of current events and with a heap of hindsight.

Going through my computer files this weekend, I ran across two articles from the recent past which put current issues in perspective.

First, a CBS/Associated Press poll dated 22 March 2003 - one week after the U.S. invasion of Iraq - might, I believe, explain why many lawmakers voted to give George W. Bush authority to declare war on that country.

At the time of Congress’ vote, according to the poll, 67 percent of Americans supported the invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Once the war began that number increased to 76 percent.

Quoting from the poll:

“Increasing numbers of Americans say removing Saddam Hussein is worth the costs, including that of loss of life.

“Three out of four Americans approve of the U.S. military action against Iraq, and watching the coalition troops' early success has the American public increasingly optimistic about a quick victory.”

Three-fourths of us, including a majority in Congress, had confidence in America, its leaders. its pre-war intelligence and its Department of Defense.

***

I have to say, at this point, I wasn’t buying it. I knew the history of Islam and the Middle East, and I had read everything I could about the pros and cons and possible outcomes of the invasion.

One particularly enlightening series of articles, by The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, a leading expert on Middle East policy, examined our options and concluded attacking Iraq would be like “throwing a brick in a hornet’s nest.”

Another article tracked our relationship with Saddam Hussein back 40 years, when, during the Kennedy administration, a CIA-conducted regime change helped propel the tyrant to power in the Baathist Party. The writer concluded the article, written two weeks before the invasion, “If a new war in Iraq seems fraught with danger and uncertainty, just wait for the peace.”

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said before the war that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq would spawn “a hundred new bin Ladens.”

***

The second article I reviewed this weekend is an amazing retrospective - a sane and succinct explanation of why the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq.

Ironically, the article was written in 1998, five years before the war began.

More compelling were its authors: former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to presidents Bush and Gerald Ford.

“Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam” appeared in Time magazine, 2 March 1998, and could have been titled “Why Things Aren’t Going So Well in Iraq Today.”

THE ARTICLES:

The CBS/Associated Press poll, 22 March 2003, CBS. LINK

“A TYRANT 40 YEARS IN THE MAKING.” Roger Morris, The New York Times, 14 March 2003. LINK

“Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam,” George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, Time, 2 March 1998. LINK