ANTI-WAR SPEECH –

(Approx: 25 minutes)
Copyright 2003-Donald Neal McKay

I do not come here on the best of occasions. Sadly, I come here because of the worst of times… I come because of this country’s impending war with Iraq.

I ask: Does this war have to happen? Do we as a country have to march down the irrevocable path of death and destruction so that the United States may preserve its status in the world? Many of us by ever-growing numbers are responding to these questions … all of us being heard from around the globe … and the answer we are giving is a direct and forceful, “No!”

“No! We do not have to go to war. But we will…. We will because the United States has boxed itself into a corner. On the one hand, we cannot gracefully withdraw our military presence without appearing as having been backed down by Saddam Hussein. On the other, if we invade Iraq and prevail – as everyone here believes in their hearts that we will do… we will prevail -- then we are left with the unenviable task of having to rebuild, refinance and occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time.

Now I ask: How did it come to this? How did events come this far and place the United States in a position that is analogous to a hook having set itself deeply inside a fish and there is no way for a graceful withdrawal?

Events have come to this point because of the simple fact that the Bush Administration lost its focus. Instead of constantly keeping Osama bin Laden and his organization of terrorist thugs first and foremost in the minds of the American and world public, the Administration made a ‘challengeable’ connection between bin Laden and the leader of Iraq.

When the Administration did that… when they connected the supposed two terrorist dots… they immediately diffused and diluted the efficacy of the United States’ war on terrorism. Saddam suddenly became larger than life, while Osama bin Laden faded into the background. Even today, unless the Al-Queda leader releases a video or radio pronouncement, he is quickly buried under the emphasis placed on Saddam.

Almost a year ago, while he was in Russia, President Bush was given a warning by Russia’s President Putin not to lose focus on terrorism and the terrorists themselves. Had Bush taken Putin’s advice, the entire Mid-East situation not only could have been addressed differently, but very likely the ‘surgical’ removal of Saddam could have been effected.

Former NATO Commander, General Wesley Clark – among many voices – stated on Tim Russert’s ‘Meet the Press’ recently that he felt the Bush Administration’s handling of the Mid-East affair was wrong-headed. General Clark was absolutely right as he outlined how he would have gone after the ‘9/11’ terrorists, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Al-Queda and, eventually, Saddam Hussein.

What the General proposed… and really, this makes more sense because it is

most logical… was to publicly, and with military force, pursue Osama bin Laden no matter where he goes … or where he is suspected of going or suspected of hiding. General Clark’s point is worth noting.

Using the umbrella mandate to guide United States’ operations in the pursuit and apprehension of international terrorists – not just the Islamic brand of terrorist – but terrorists everywhere , the Bush Administration could have served notice to the world that this country would be in hot pursuit of terrorists no matter where they were hiding.

The Administration could have even gone a step further – and undoubtedly won the cooperation of many of the Mid-East countries – by taking the onus of blame and conspiracy off a suspected terrorist host country just with the issuing of some well thought-out, diplomatic language. Something as simple and direct as this…

‘We understand that as a country with many miles of borders – much of it difficult terrain – that it is almost impossible for you to keep out determined terrorists desiring to enter and seek out a hiding place. We, the United States, understand that, and thus hold you no-fault should a terrorist cell appear within your country.

“All we expect you to do is expeditiously allow us to quietly enter your country, pursue the terrorists, catch them and then quietly leave your country. In other words, wherever terrorists go on the face of the earth, the United States wants to hunt them down and bring them to justice.

“Surely, there is no sane country that would willingly want to shelter terrorists; for that could turn out to be too dangerous even for the asylum nation. At a moment’s notice, any country with in-dwelling terrorists could find itself being taken over by those same terrorists and held hostage to the terrorist way of life. And, should that country find itself in such a desperate situation, then no choice would be left to the United States – not only the United States, but other nations of the civilized world as well – than to massively invade the host country and root out and thoroughly destroy any and all terrorists and their operation.”

After ‘9/11’, what country would deny us our lawful pursuit of terrorists? What ‘sane’ country would deny us? If only we had said to Saddam Hussein, “No avarice towards you, Mr. President, but we are coming into Iraq to get Osama bin Laden. You can either help us achieve our objective or we cannot be held responsible for what happens (read that as, ‘should the opportunity arise, we will take you out of power in the process’). Make no mistake about it, the United States hunts down terrorists and you have the option, Mr. President Saddam Hussein, of helping us or you risk becoming an obstacle that has to be removed. The choice is yours.”

Talk like this… talk where Osama bin Laden is ALWAYS placed out front as the focus of United States’ antiterrorist countermeasures… this kind of diplomatic phrasing connotes directly to the countries of the world that the United States is not making this a personal issue with them. We are not making it a religious issue of it – which our aims and objectives are now perceived to be by many in the Middle East – nor are we making a political issue of it, nor an oil issue, nor a Jewish issue. The clear and only intent of the United States is to hunt down and bring to justice world terrorists.

Let the United States unmistakably signal that it is not in the business of invading countries for the purpose of deposing various leadership. Let it be clearly understood by the countries of the world that it is the purpose of the United States – solely – to chase after and apprehend terrorists.

It is clear definition of purpose and thinking presented by this country to the rest of the world that will go a long way toward reestablishing the United States to its position of respect and sought-after leadership.

Gone are the days where the United States could rely on the membership of NATO to fall in behind its step and obediently follow where ever we felt compelled to march. Look at what France has done over the past few weeks… what Germany and Russia have done. No more is the United States being given diplomatic and military carte blanc, either in the United Nations’ Security Council nor within the NATO membership. Even at this writing, Turkey’s Parliament has voted to refuse the stationing of United States’ military forces on Turkish soil.

All of this is the world’s way of telling the United States that it does not want war with Iraq. The world is not telling the United States to desist in its pursuit of terrorists, but instead, the Bush Administration is being admonished in many not-so-subtle ways that the world objects to the invasion of a sovereign nation with the sole stated purpose of deposing that nation’s ruler. Politically, the world objects, and publicly it objects. Anti-war demonstrations can be seen continually taking place in front of world television. This war is not popular.

We look at our televisions, and if we watch the various around-the-clock news outlets, we cannot help seeing image after repeated image of the human face of Iraq. People on the streets… women and children… peaceful shop keepers… students… old men and women… people who are the mirror image of we the watchers. Surely, when and if the Iraqi people want a change of leadership, they will take matters into their own hands. Many within the United States scoff at this idea. They say the Iraqis cannot overthrow Saddam Hussein because he is too powerful, too entrenched. To this I say: no leader is so untouchable when his or her time comes to be overthrown can they avoid being deposed. History is our teacher for this lesson.

Who foresaw the revolt and overthrow of all the Eastern European nations that comprised the Warsaw Pact? Who foresaw the revolt and overthrow of the system of government that ruled the Soviet Union? Surely, the intelligence agencies of the United States didn't. But none the less, massive, wide spread revolts took place and the world was forever changed. Surely, the oppressive systems of government and punitive police organs within Hungary, Poland and Romania were every bit as strong and terrible as the one presently inside Iraq. And yet… the peoples of those countries took matters into their own hands and violently effected change. Can not the Iraqi do the same? Cannot 24,000,000 citizens overthrow one tin horn despot? Believe me, when the mobs choke the streets and boulevards of Baghdad, just by witnessing the sheer enormity of numbers of protesters, courage on the part of Saddam’s protectors will fast vaporize and the despot will be left to his own devices for survival.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein is ‘do-able’, but only if the Iraqi people are inclined in that direction. In my opinion, the fastest way to ‘incline’ them is for the United States to back down from its war posture and make it clear to the Iraqi that we are on the hunt for terrorists only, but that if the Iraqi do see their way clear to topple Saddam, we – as in ‘United Nations’ -- will enter Iraq at their request to stabilize the situation in order to prevent a counter revolution. And, while the United States – specifically – is in-country, we will be about our business of mopping up terrorists.

What my suggestion would allow the United States to accomplish is the nonalienation of the Arab world. True, some Middle Eastern nations will take umbrage at the United States’ presence in going about its antiterrorism business. But, then again, what nation wishes to appear before the rest of the world as being a friendly haven for terrorists? And in so declaring, said nation (or nations) open themselves up to wholesale invasion – this time compliments of a unified United Nations force.

It is a much easier caveat of conscience to have a terrorist sanctuary nation openly declare themselves as such by not cooperating with a United States’ anti-terror operation than for us to point a finger and, many times without hard evidence, state that a specific country is harboring terrorists.

In summation, let me declare that I do believe that the United States can win the war on terrorism and do it without having to engage in wholesale nation-against-nation invasion, destruction, bloodshed and death. There is a cleaner and smarter way in which the United States can combat terrorism. This country is capable of conducting a different and less public war against terrorism… as recently proved in Pakistan with the capturing of the number-three man in Al-Queda… a war that is in no way diminished in its intent and objectives.

Hopefully, wisdom will prevail within the Bush Administration. Hopefully we in the United States will utilize our massive collective intelligence… and our just as massive outrage… to come up with a smarter, better way of doing things. Hopefully….

Thank you for having me here and for your concern with this important issue.

-- 30 --