We are either at Munich, 1938, or Suez, 1956. Depending on whether we are for or against this coming war, one or the other is the favoured comparison.
President Bush and Mr Blair, even more so Mr Rumsfeld, would have us believe that we are at Munich. Mr Bush, Mr Blair and, again even more so, Mr Rumsfeld each thinks that he is the Churchill. Except that he is already in office, which Churchill was not yet in 1938, and the West does not give in. We stand up to the dictator, go to war and win decisively. The dictator and his evil regime fall. Democracy and human rights reign in the region concerned.
Opponents of the coming war have equally little difficulty in placing us at Suez, 1956. Mr Bush is Eden. Saddam is Nasser, except that Saddam has not seized anyone’s canal. Mr Bush becomes convinced that he must destroy the dictator. Otherwise British/American influence in the Middle East, and in the world at large, will be gone. He is encouraged in this belief by ministers with stronger personalities. He goes to war.
Here, the Suez party of 2003 departs from the real Suez of 1956. They do not deny that Eden/Bush this time wins. They say that the victory will have consequences for the nominal victors which will eventually amount to a defeat, and the eclipse of American power in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. America will not to be able to bring ‘democracy’ to Iraq, and will eventually flee the region just as it fled Vietnam.
Both Iraq, 2003, as Munich or Suez have, as analogies, their weak and strong points. But another comparison can be offered for consideration. We are neither in 1938 nor in 1956, but 1914.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in