Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman’s recent assertion is that comparisons between Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein are basically foolish. I disagree. There are many parallels between the two.
Rewind to the 1930s. Hitler’s Third Reich was already well positioned for "success." Back here in the States, the position of the U.S. people was exactly the way it was against Hussein three years ago. In a nutshell, we felt, "Yes, he’s a crazy, brutal dictator who brutalizes innocent people, but he’s halfway around the world and he’s not our problem."
Sound familiar? Meanwhile, while going ignored by the superpower U.S. and forging very strong alliances with nations with powerful armies, he slowly but surely started to absorb France, Austria, Poland, etc. By the time the U.S. got involved, we had a real mess on our hands that cost tens of thousands of U.S. lives.
Fast forward to the ’80s and ’90s and we see Hussein attacking countries that border Iraq. No he wasn’t as successful initially as Hitler at growing his empire, but with the war on terror growing, so were his supporters. Even the man in charge of Iraq’s weapons program noted it was only a matter of time before a large arsenal of globally dangerous weapons would have been created. Chapman shouldn’t be so shortsighted as to assume that there aren’t any valid comparisons between Hussein and Hitler. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Mr. McCabe's ignorance of history is appalling.
There is no comparison between pre-World War II and the runup to this disaster in Iraq.
Germany was an industrial power that was arming at a time when much of the rest of the world was both retreating from militarization after the horrors of World War I and crippled by depression. Iraq had fought Iran with our full encouragement and in response to the Iranian regime's support of Iraqi Shi'a uprisings, and invaded Kuwait again with our misguided blessing. While by no means justified, Iraq's action against Kuwait was understandable--Kuwait was pulling from Iraqi oil fields and was overproducing, driving crude prices down at a time when Iraq needed oil revenues to recover from the costs of the Iran war.
At the end of the 1st gulf war, and then through sanctions, Iraq's military was gutted and its economy in shambles. The U.S. and Britain flew daily missions over much of the country, with extensive satellite surveillance. On the eve of World War II, Germany was a fully industrialized, armed and expansionistic state. Iraq was crippled and ruled by a tinhorn dictator who, no matter how oppressive to his people, posed no threat to the United States.
That was what those of us who opposed war knew then--the fact that he was "halfway around the world" played no part. Mr. McCabe, those who misunderstand history are condemned to screw it up completely.
2 comments:
Very brave for an anonymous person to post anothers personal information. Republican or just stupid?
Again in the Trib. letter you have lemmings using the Saddam-terrorist link. HELLO! The CIA has proven that there was NO LINK! Let me guess; the CIA is now a tool of the liberals.
Peter, how many corners do you have?
Not really sure of his point--I'm in the phone book.
Post a Comment