Peter:

Most Democrats—myself included in the New York Times piece below—objected to the Bush Administration’s plan to wage all-out war in the Gulf in 1991 because they felt that diplomacy and pressure had not yet run their course. Once it became clear that economic sanctions, the threat of force accompanied by a build-up of allied troops, and French and Russian negotiations with Saddam were unlikely to bring about a withdrawal from Kuwait, Democrats upheld the use of the international military coalition sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council. And they do so now again, if an aggressive UN inspection regime proves unable to rid Iraq of genocidal weapons. The initial Democratic reservations a decade ago reflected prudence and caution before unleashing the awesome devastation of armed conflict, in a battle where weapons of mass destruction were likely to come into play, the environment ravaged, numerous civilians killed, and other Middle East regimes potentially destabilized. They also stemmed from common Jewish and Christian ethical teachings on just war, which maintain that a good-faith effort must be made to avoid warfare before resorting to force. This condition holds even if the goals of the campaign are righteous, or redound to Israeli and American security.

Desert Storm was a just war which may have temporarily enhanced Israel’s security. Hindsight is always 20/20. Before the fact, there was reason aplenty for concern that hostilities might have ended disastrously, as I warned in the Times. Is the world now due for a stinging lesson in scorpion logic?, I wondered aloud, reminding the President and his bellicose Republican chorus of the Middle Eastern parable featuring the scorpion who prefers to drown with the frog ferrying him to the other side of the River Jordan. Only this time the scorpion may sting with weapons of mass destruction—and the world transformed in unintended and frightful ways.

Are We Now Due for a Stinging Lesson in Scorpion Logic?

Gidon D. Remba

The New York Times

Published February 2, 1991, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
Section 1; Page 22; Column 4; Editorial Desk
531 words

To the Editor:

Edward Said conveniently forgets (Op-Ed, Jan. 11) that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights was prompted by an Arab military threat to Israel, an expression of the very same "remorseless Arab propensity to violence and extremism" which he so professes to abhor. Unlike the unprovoked Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, as clear an act of imperialist self-aggrandizement as could be imagined, the Israeli occupation was an act of self-defense.

Is it surprising that one who brands as imperialist the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and independence by a U.N.-authorized force should also fail to countenance Israel's acts of legitimate self-defense? Is Professor Said aware of any Security Council resolutions which called upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories without also proclaiming the need for the surrounding states -- including Iraq -- to honor its right to exist in peace? Where is his call for an authentic Arab and Palestinian will to peaceful coexistence with Israel? It is difficult not to conclude his clamor for consistency in international relations is ideologically muffled when it comes to his own pet cause.

While the use of force by the U.S. against Iraq is clearly sanctioned by international law, I must concur with Professor Said when he asks: Is war genuinely necessary now? Though it may be lawful, is force morally justified at this juncture, and is it the wisest means for achieving the just ends of the international community? Like Professor Said, and many of those who spoke in the Congressional debate, I, too, am far from convinced that the President adequately pursued diplomatic alternatives to war. By eschewing any negotiations or concessions to Iraq as a "reward for aggression," the President refuses to acknowledge that Iraq's aggression was motivated by grievances that require consideration.

To explain is not to excuse; to reason is not to forgive. The failure of the Administration to show Iraq, apparently even in private, that it would support a forum for addressing Iraq's disputes with its Arab neighbors following an Iraqi withdrawal, may have left Saddam with no avenue for a face-saving retreat.

Perhaps the President has never heard the old chestnut about the scorpion and the frog trying to cross the Jordan River. The scorpion asks the frog to ferry him across the river, to which the frog replies: "What kind of fool do you take me for? If I carry you on my back across the river, when we reach the middle you will sting me, and I will drown." To which the scorpion wryly rejoins: "If I did that, we would both drown. What sort of fool do you take me for?" Whereupon the frog, seeing the logic in the scorpion's words, proceeds to ferry the scorpion on his back across the river. When they reach the middle where the water is deepest, the scorpion stings the frog. As the frog and scorpion both go down, the frog cries out: "Why in heaven's name did you do that? Now we will both drown!" To which the scorpion replies: "Because this is the Middle East!"

The world, I fear, is about to get a stinging lesson in scorpion logic.

(Chicago, Jan. 13, 1991)