The Press : Words of War in British Editorials on the Gulf

With about 4,500 of its nationals detained in Iraq and Kuwait--half again as many as the number of U.S. citizens held there--Britain is particularly outraged by Saddam Hussein’s tactics. And that outrage shows clearly in British newspaper editorials on the subject.

“There is nothing novel about the way that Saddam is behaving. Newsreel film of Hitler and Stalin showed similar scenes of a despot who liked to present himself not just as the father of his nation, but as a benevolent leader of all peoples.

“But there has never before been anyone who used innocent people whose lives he threatens in such a blatant propaganda exercise . . .

“Perhaps we should be grateful for this latest attempt by Saddam to pervert our view of him.

“It shows with breathtaking clarity just what a monster now threatens the world.

“And, as ever, there is only one way to deal with monsters.”

-- Today

“Does Saddam really believe that people in the West will be charmed and persuaded that he may not be so bad after all?

“Totalitarian rulers do tend to become so cut off from reality and the rest of humankind that they have very little idea of what ordinary people think of them.

“More likely, though, this strange charade indicates some weakening of Saddam’s resolve, perhaps even an underlying desperation as outside forces close in on him.

“Could it be that he is contemplating backing down, ever so discreetly?

“If so, it will be a tribute to the tough, no-nonsense response to his aggression by the rest of the world and, above all, by the United States and ourselves.

“What Saddam must now realize is that only by disgorging the fruits of his conquest and compensating his victims can he hope to achieve the peace he claims to crave.”

-- Daily Mail

“Much of the war talk is real. People not only talk this way, which need not be fatal; they actually think this way, which easily could be. Sometimes implicitly, often explicitly, the line is put about that sanctions, embargoes, blockades are no more than foreplay. We have to be realistic. We have to go in; and that being the case, the sooner we go the better . . . That is not realism . . . Realism deals in patience much more often than it deals in heroics; in subtlety and long-term calculation more often than in short-term simplicities. The Guardian has argued since the crisis began that the right response to Saddam Hussein must be international action in defense of international law, not unilateral action by the U.S. and its closest allies; and economic pressure, firmly applied, not immediate resort to arms. Brutalism despises that kind of language. It says that it never worked and it never will . . .

“With all its gaps and weaknesses and possible perils, the course of patience and caution and proceeding by consensus has a far greater realism to it than the blithe and bloody fantasies of the turkey shooters. Their strategy . . . contrives to underestimate both the strengths of Saddam Hussein and his weaknesses. It takes too little account of the strength of his army, his possession of highly destructive weapons, his complete indifference to the value of human life, and his appeal to sections of Arab opinion; but it also undervalues his isolation and his dependence on imports of food, equipment and other essentials.

“Most of all it omits to imagine the state of the shattered landscape when the turkey shoot is over . . .

“The very triviality and jokiness of the metaphors which the brutalists employ is a measure of their inadequacy . . . Their counsel is destructive at all times: Taken at a time like present, it could leave a trail of devastation behind it with long-term consequences even more grave and globally menacing than those which confront us today.

“All done in the name of realism: But by the time that myth was exploded, it would, of course, be too late.”

--The Guardian

“The pseudo-avuncular Saddam Hussein appeared on Iraqi TV . . . with 20 of his Western hostages in a crude attempt to bring pressure to bear on their governments by capitalizing on the worries of the hostages’ families about their safety. No one can have been reassured by his claim that ‘as Iraqis, Arabs and human beings we want you to be safe.’ If his intention had been to undermine domestic support for the Western military blockade of Iraq and Kuwait, it failed. The spectacle of the dictator gripping a reluctant British boy by the arm to show his human side will only have hardened Western opinion against him. Keeping innocent foreign civilians hostage is bad enough; making them participate in a televised photo opportunity for personal propaganda is repellent.”

--Evening Standard

“The British people are prepared for a just war in the gulf. That is the simple message to be derived from the . . . poll published in this newspaper today . . .

“The Iraqi seizure of hostages and the subsequent threat to deploy them around possible targets of allied bombing have not made these targets seem inviolable. Most voters believe that if war comes the installations sheltered by hostages should be attacked anyway; only a quarter think they should not be. The British are not prepared to retaliate in kind to that breach of the rules of war, either; more than half disagree or disagree strongly with a proposal to round up Iraqis in this country. There is also a reluctance to starve Iraq into submission, or to extend the blockade to include medical supplies . . .

“Once the first British corpses have appeared on television, there can be no question of stopping until Saddam is dead or departed. The time in which that descent into inevitability can be averted is running out.”

-- The Independent

“Iraq’s room for maneuver has been further restricted by U.N. action this weekend. Those who, like (Austrian) President (Kurt) Waldheim, see this as the moment for compromise should think again. There can only be one message for Saddam: If he is seeking to save face, he will be bowing to the international community, not the United States, in complying fully with U.N. resolutions. Nor can there be any assurance that, even if he does comply, he will face no penalties.

“An impressive combination of diplomatic and military cooperation has compelled Iraq’s president to forfeit allies, oil income and bitterly contested Iranian territory, but unless he surrenders unconditionally to U.N. terms and is held accountable for his violations of international law, he will continue to be a threat. The blockade is only a means to an end.”

--The Times