THEY WON THE WAR -- AND LOST THE PEACE

by Betty Luks
How difficult it is to sum up the essentials of the spirit, the camaraderie, of service, the staying power, displayed by the generation who fought, and won the victory in WWII; but yet went on 'to lose the peace'. Simon Heffer, after watching the D-Day Commemorations mused over this seemingly baffling question in The Spectator, 5/6/04: "For those who benefited from their courage and sacrifice, they are a living monument to a spirit that now seems antique. Yet we are conscious that, one by one, they too are dying: and soon their only monuments will be of stone."

He examines the qualities displayed by those people; commitment, heroism, staying power in face of such adversities, then goes on to look at the following generations and the age, the present age, in which they live: "In an age of counselling, the compensation culture, Prozac and human rights, it is hardly surprising that survivors of the D-Day generation look at the world they fought for with a certain amount of impatience and disdain. They grew up in a hard school after all…"

He thought the older generation had a firmer, clearer belief in the values of their country - but did they? There was much horror and disillusion after WWI; the cream of the youth had sacrificed their lives - many asked -- for what? Sir Arthur Bryant gives a glimpse of those days in "The Lion & the Unicorn":
"The greatest miracle I have ever witnessed was the transformation of the Army between 1940 and 1945; between the collapse of France and the return to Europe of British arms, when with our American allies - still the junior partner in fighting skill and experience - we fought our way back from the south into the continental fortress from which we had been driven at Dunkirk."

In 1940 the Army, after a generation of neglect, was the Cinderella of the Services, and the swelling ranks were drawn from a generation, which had been taught to regard war with horror, and soldiering as a stupid activity, 'Colonel Blimp' was looked upon with great scorn. Yet, says Sir Arthur, 'Colonel Blimp' was to save us.
Under the older regimental officers of Flanders and Picardy -- coming out of retirement in response to their regiment's call of return to duty -- the young men of that generation were transformed into soldiers. They had become imbued with a fighting spirit and soldierly pride equal to those of the finest armies Britain had raised in the past.

"This astonishing change was brought about," remarked Sir Arthur, "by a resort to the Army's living history," and accomplished by middle-aged officers from the sporting shires and tough, hard-baked non-commissioned paragons of the barrack square. "They (the officers) were astonishingly effective, exhorting by word, deed and example those temporarily committed to their charge, to emulate the men of old who by their valour and fortitude, had created and handed down the legends by which their regiments lived."

Manners makyth the Man -- Naval Tradition
During WWII, Sir Arthur Bryant put to a naval officer a question needing an answer:
In what consisted the genius of the Royal Navy for evoking virtue from men and winning their affection and loyalty. It was a genius which, unless neglected, has been evolved through the centuries. The officer answered, "a system of manners". "Based on long experience," wrote Sir Arthur, "it has been directed to solving the practical problems of enabling men to live together in the confined and crowded conditions of life afloat. Without it a sailor's life would be intolerable and discipline impossible. What is this system? It can be summarised in four words -- "Consideration for other seamen." By this is not meant a weak or sentimental consideration; life at sea, and most of all in wartime, is hard, anything but a stern and realist consideration for the other man's lot would be a mistaken and cruel kindness."

The common well-being
"The most useful gifts one sailor can give another are courage, capacity for endurance and self-respect, for without these he must face ultimate disaster and shame. To enable a man to be a man, in the Navy's view, is the highest service one seaman can do another. And the great admirals who built up the unwritten code of naval behaviour have always borne this fundamental truth in mind. Yet the basis of British naval discipline, stern and spartan though it is, is never obedience for its own sake, but obedience for the sake of ship and crew and the common well-being of all."

Writing about WWII and summing up the perilous situation the British people faced, Bryant wrote: "…when, after two decades of neglect of its maritime traditions, a seafaring people was grappling with the greatest peril in its history, and facing almost insuperable odds, it was saved by the courage, faith and leadership of admirals and captains who had served as young lieutenant-commanders, lieutenants and midshipmen under John Jellico." John Jellico had laid it down: Officers must be taught that their first duty is the well-being of those under them. "In that statement he summed up the whole naval tradition," said Bryant.

The tradition is not based on administrative machinery, but on humanity; humanity, not at its lowest level but at its highest. It being the constant reminder of all naval precept that man is not only a body but a spirit. He encouraged the coming generations to learn from our traditions, "to realise that we can learn other lessons from our great fighting Services, than those of valour and technical skill. For they are repositories of certain human truths which have been forgotten almost everywhere else. "Manners," runs the old saying, "makyth the Man." But in our eager, clever, greedy machine age, man is the one thing we have forgotten how to make."

"Democracy is a culture not a method." Jacques Chirac, G8 meeting, 2004.

THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST

It was recently announced ETSA Utilities was going to invest $1.6 billion in the development of their infrastructure in South Australia. The truth was rather different. ETSA wasn't going to invest a cracker, ETSA wants the small consumer and government to pay for the planned infrastructure! South Australians awoke one morning to the news the 'privatised' ETSA Utility wants the State Government and the customer to pay upfront for its planned infrastructures by paying one dollar a week… ad infinitum? It was only last Christmas SA consumers were hit by the same monopoly - er…company, with a huge price rise. Understandably there has been an outcry from consumers at the recent news.

The small businessman does not have the luxury of such benefits-- generously assisted by governments with taxpayers' funds. He has to be responsible for funding his own infrastructure After all, in a business venture, he is the one taking the risks and has to back his judgements with his own funds… usually borrowed from the rapacious banks. But not so in this case; the 'privatised' supposedly more 'efficient' electricity utility not only wants us to fund its risk-taking, but it wants to pocket all the profits as well, most of which will probably go overseas.

Let's get the sale conditions on the table
The public are asking that the original sale conditions, such as the following, be placed 'on the table' for some close scrutiny.
· The original agreement and the matter of infrastructure
· Return on investment
· Key performance indicators
· Retention of funds
· Disposal of real estate assets
· Reducing construction standards of stobie poles.
The government is backing off such a course of action claiming "commercial confidence" would be breached.

One local letter writer summed it up well
By the consumer and the state government paying for the infrastructures, we would in fact be reducing competition by way of making it less likely that demand management and alternatives to centralised power generation and distribution can compete in the electricity market. As usual the losers would be the small consumer and the environment.

ONE U. S. SENATOR SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The following is an abridged version of Senator Ernest Hollings' response to accusations of 'anti-semitism' resulting from his public criticisms of Bush's Iraq policies. 20th May, 2004.

Floor Statement: Setting the Record Straight on Mideast Newspaper Column.
"I have this afternoon, the opportunity to respond to being charged as anit-Semitic when I proclaimed the policy of President Bush in the Mideast as not for Iraq or really for democracy in the sense that he is worried about Saddam and democracy.
It is very interesting that on page 231, Richard Clarke, in his book "Against All Enemies," cites the fact that there had not been any terrorism, any evidence or intelligence of Saddam's terrorism against the United States from 1993 to 2003. He says that in the presence of Paul Wolfowitz. He says that in the presence of John McLaughlin of the CIA. In fact, he says: Isn't that right, John? And John says: That is exactly right.
The reason was when they made the attempt on President Bush Senior, back in 1993, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on Saddam in downtown Baghdad, the intelligence headquarters, and it went right straight down the middle of the headquarters. It was after hours so not a big kill--but Saddam got the message: You monkey around with the United States, a missile will land on your head. So, in essence, the equation had changed in the Saddam-Iraq/Mideast concerns whereby Saddam was more worried about any threat of the United States against him than the United States was worried about a threat by Saddam against us.
I want to read an article that appeared in the Post and Courier in Charleston on May 6; thereafter, I think in the State newspaper in Columbia a couple days later; and in the Greenville News--all three major newspapers in South Carolina. You will find that there is no anti-Semitic reference whatsoever in it. The reason I emphasize that upfront is for the simple reason that you cannot put an op-ed in my hometown paper that is anti-Semitic. We have a very, very proud Jewish community in Charleston. In fact, it is where reform Judaism began…This particular Senator, with over 50 years now of public service, has received a strong Jewish vote.

Let me emphasize another thing because the papers are piling on and bringing up again a little difference of opinion I had on the Senate floor with Senator Metzenbaum. It was not really a difference. We were discussing a matter, and we referred to each one's religion in order to make sure there would not be any misunderstanding or tempers flaring. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, referred to himself as the Baptist lay leader, Senator Danforth as the Episcopal priest. I referred to myself as the Lutheran Senator. And when Senator Metzenbaum came on the floor, I referred to him as the Senator from B'nai B'rith, and he took exception. He thought it was an aspersion. I told him: Wait a minute, I will gladly identify myself as the Senator from B'nai B'rith. I did not mean to hurt his feelings. I apologized at that time but not for the legitimacy and the circumstances of the particular reference.
Now here we go again, some years later. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. George Allen, and I are good friends. Maybe after this particular thing he might feel different…

Denouncing Hollings' anti-semitic political conspiracy attack
And so I have an article here where Senator Allen denounces Senator Hollings' latest political attack, Senator Hollings' antisemitic, political conspiracy statement. Let me read my column from the May 6 Post and Courier, and you be the judge:
With 760 dead in Iraq, over 3,000 maimed for life--home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq--and how to get out. Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11, the State Department did not list Iraq. They listed 45 countries and at that particular date on September 11, 2001, they did not even list Iraq.

Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. On page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

Thought they were attacking for Israel
Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence Mossad knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction .....
Let me divert for a second there. I was here when Israel attacked the nuclear facility in Baghdad during the 1980s. In all candour, when President Bush, on October 7, 2002, said, after all that build up by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and everybody else, that facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud, I thought we were attacking for Israel. I thought that they knew about some kind of nuclear development there. And rather than getting them in further trouble with the United Nations and the Arab world, that its best friend, the United States, would knock it out for them. That is why I voted for it. I got misled. Our attack on Iraq, the invasion of Iraq is a bad mistake. But let me read even further:
..... With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area.

Wolfowitz wrote
"The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." Namely, invasion. That is Wolfowitz talking. And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ..... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region."
I referred to those three gentlemen because I know them well. They are brilliant. I have been for years associated one way or the other with each of them. I read Charles Krauthammer. I wish I could write like he can.

With respect to Richard Perle, he was sort of our authority in the cold war, best friend of Scoop Jackson. That is how I met him 38 years ago almost. I followed him and I followed his advice, and that is in large measure how we prevailed in the cold war. So I have the highest respect for Richard Perle. And, of course, the other gentleman, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz, I met him in Indonesia when he was Ambassador. He came back. We were good friends. He was looking around for a position, and I know I offered him one--in fact, we might go to the records and find temporarily he might have been on my payroll for a few weeks. But I have always had the highest regard for Paul Wolfowitz.
That is why I referred to him. I had their sayings and everything else. But let me go, diverting for a minute, right to the "Project For The New American Century".

I have a letter that was written on May 29, 1998, to Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader.
These are the gentlemen who said this: We would use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberating areas in northern and southern Iraq, and we should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power. And that is signed by--and I want everybody to remember these names: Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John R. Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick.

The domino effect
There is a studied school of thought of the best way to secure Israel. We have been going for years back and forth with every particular administration, you can see where we are now. But in any event, the better way to do it is go right in and establish our predominance in Iraq and then, as they say, and I have different articles here I could refer to, next is Iran and then Syria. And it is the domino theory, and they genuinely believe it.
I differ. I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of. That is my Israel policy. You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance.

No President takes office without being told what is the policy
I can tell you no President takes office--I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat--that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I have stated it categorically. The way to really get peace is not militarily. You cannot kill an idea militarily.

I was delighted the other day when General Myers appeared before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and he said that we will not win militarily in Iraq. He didn't say we are going to get defeated militarily but that you can't win militarily in Iraq.
The papers are the ones that pointed out Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Charles Krauthammer were of the Jewish faith. They are the ones who brought all this Semitism in there. I can tell you that right now, I didn't have that in mind. I had my friends in mind and I followed them.

Project for the New American century
We had this in the late 1990s under President Clinton, when we passed a resolution that we ought to have Saddam removed from power, have a regime change. I was wondering how it went. I had to find my old file on this -- Project For The New American Century.
Now, going back to my article, I wrote: "every President since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought - re-election."
I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled.

The President doesn't work on the problems
There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was re-election. I say that about President Bush. He is a delightful fella, a wonderful campaigner, but he loves campaigning. You cannot get him in the White House or catch him there, hardly. He doesn't work on these problems at all.
I have worked with all of the Presidents. I know the leadership goes to the White House and tries to work with him. He is interested in one thing, and that is to be out campaigning. So he had one thought in mind, and that was re-election. Again, let me read: "Bush thought tax cuts would hold his crowd together and that spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."

Is there anything wrong with referring to the Jewish vote? Good gosh, every one of us of the 100, with pollsters and all, refer to the Jewish vote. That is not anti-Semitic. It is appreciating them. We campaigned for it.

I just read about President Bush's appearance before the AIPAC. He confirmed his support of the Jewish vote, referring to adopting Ariel Sharon's policy, and the dickens with the 1967 borders, the heck with negotiating the return of refugees, the heck with the settlements he had objected to originally. They had those borders, Resolution No. 242--no, no, President Bush said: I am going along with Sharon, and he was going to get that and he got the wonderful reception he got with the Jewish vote. There is nothing like politicising or a conspiracy, as my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, says--that it is an anti-Semitic, political, conspiracy statement.

Tell us why we are in Iraq
That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of "The Project For The New American Century".
Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel. If we can get in there and take it in 7 days, as Paul Wolfowitz says, then we would get rid of Saddam, and when we got rid of Saddam, now all they can do is fall back and say: Aren't you getting rid of Saddam? Let me get to that point.
What happens is, they say he is a monster. We continued to give him aid after he gassed his own people and everything else of that kind. George Herbert Walker Bush said in his book "All The Best in 1999", never commit American GIs into an unwinnable urban guerrilla war and lose the support of the Arab world, lose their friendship and support. That is a general rephrasing of it.

The point is, my authority is the President's daddy. I want everybody to know that. I don't apologise for this column. I want them to apologise to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting by with it. I will come down here every day--I have nothing else to do--and we will talk about it and find out what the policy is.
Let me go back to this particular column: But George Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days before the Inauguration.

There is no question, he got a briefing. That was the first thing he wanted out of former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Then the nominee, about to take the oath of office as President of the United States, wanted to be briefed on Iraq. They had this policy in mind coming to town.
Mr. President, 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and we all know it now. We have to understand it because that is the only way really to help Israel and get us out of the soup. Everybody is worrying about Iraq. We better worry about Israel because we certainly have put her in terrible jeopardy with this particular initiative.

Without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks President Bush had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only 7 days. Vice President Cheney believed that we would be greeted as liberators, but Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.
In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16 million, General William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops, was still asking for more troops. In Iraq, with a population of 25 million, General John Abizaid, with only 135,000 troops, can barely secure the troops, much less the country.

If the troops are there to fight, there are too few. If they are there to die, there are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops, at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans, and others will join with the U.N. to take over.

Terrorism is a method, not a war
With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he can't keep shouting "Terrorism war." Terrorism is a method, not a war.
We don't call the Crimean war, with the charge of the light brigade, the cavalry war, or World War II the blitzkrieg war. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland, there is terrorism in India, and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem, to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right. Right makes might.
Acting militarily we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

The title of this article is "Bush's failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism," and, I could add, jeopardizing the security of Israel.
They say: He talks like a big fan of Israel. I am. I have a 38-year track record. I will never forget some 34 years ago meeting with David Ben-Gurion. He talked about little Israel, less than 3 million at that time in a sea of 100 million.
Let's say Israel has 5 million people there now, but there are 150 million Muslims surrounding it. If you punch the particular buzzer I did with Yitzhak Rabin one day down on the Negev to scramble the air force, I think it was 21 seconds they were up in the air, and in a minute's time, they were outside over Jordan. Militarily, Israel is a veritable aircraft carrier. You can hardly fly and you are out of the country, and everybody has to understand that. You cannot play the numbers game Sharon plays. He thinks he can do it militarily.

I want to remind you, it was in that 6-day war--the book is "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren. Look on page 151, and Major Ariel Sharon says: Look, we are going to decimate the Egyptian army and you will not hear from Egypt again for several generations.
And Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, on page 152 says: "Militarily victory decides nothing. The Arabs will still be here."
We must learn to live together:
That is my theme. I have watched it over the years. You have to learn not to kill together, but to live together. There is still hope.

WHY WEREN'T WE TOLD?

What a surprise. We now learn why Ahmad Chalabi, once Washington's 'favourite Iraqi son', fell out of favour and was sidelined by the Bush regime. The U.Ks Weekly Telegraph No.670
Reports: Mr. Chalabi's allies claim a key motive for the sacking was to stop him revealing more details of the UN's oil-for-food programme; the details of which point to the bribery and corruption of politicians around the world. Chalabi, it seems, is in possession of "miles" of documents with the potential to expose politicians, corporations and the United Nations as having connived in a system of kickbacks and false pricing worth billions of pounds.

Readers will remember On Target reported in Heads Start to Roll
CIA Director George Tenet, who weathered storms over intelligence lapses about suspected WMD in Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has resigned. Tenet's move came amid new storms over intelligence issues, including an alleged Pentagon leak of highly classified intelligence to Ahmad Chalabi, the disgraced Iraqi former banker/politician."

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB