THE "HITLER-PROBLEM"

The “Hitler problem”

March 31, 2003

Now that we are officially "at war" with Iraq, the opinions proffered as to why we are there are many. Some seem more logical than others.

Initially, President Bush made the claim that we are there because Hussein has weapons of mass destruction which he could, at any time, give to terrorists like Osama bin Laden, to whom Bush says Hussein has connections.

On that score, there is a credible amount of evidence that Osama bin Laden has also had ties to President Bush and his father, the former President George H W Bush, the difference being that now bin Laden is their enemy rather than their friend, while Saddam Hussein might still be bin Laden's friend.

In large measure the American people are being asked to take "their word for it" that connections have been made between bin Laden and Hussein as well as bin Laden and the 911 terrorists.

What evidence the American people have seen in this regard is rather flimsy in the credibility department. And there are still the lingering questions of who in our government knew what, when they knew it, and whether the 911 terrorist attack was allowed to happen.

In that department, one of the questions that goes unanswered is why, after the two planes hit the world trade towers, was the third plane that hit the Pentagon not blown out of the air by military jets that stand prepared and ready to defend American air space at all times? With the knowledge that terrorists could hit at any time, why were these jets not scrambled when the airliners dropped off the radar screen? Or, again, are we not being told the truth or the whole story?

Now that we are "at war" with Saddam Hussein, many Americans are trying to make sense of it all. Not an easy task when key variables are missing and we are asked to give carte blanche trust to a government that has proven time and again that it is not to be trusted. It was not all that long ago that the American people learned that FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) knew, before Pearl Harbor happened, that it was going to happen, that FDR allowed it to happen to draw America into the war. Then, too, there is the fact brought forth by Robert McNamara in his book, that the Vietnam "war" was run on the tenets of PPBS — planning programming budgeting systems -- another name for systems governance. The goal of American involvement in Vietnam was not to win, but to meet the PPBS goals.

While Bush is obviously not FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, or any of those who make up the ranks of former 20th century presidents, the taint is still there and the question remains of how far Americans can trust their leaders.

In looking at all of this, watching events unfold, and mulling it over, I would suggest to the American people another possible explanation for Gulf War II.

Since the advent of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a quote from a book by Ervin Laszlo keeps coming to mind. Laszlo, as some may know, is a proponent of systems governance. Born in Communist Hungary, he has written several books on systems governance and is currently a consultant to the United Nations.

In his book, A Strategy for the Future; the Systems Approach to World Order, Laszlo contemplates what he refers to as the "Hitler-problem." In this regard, he writes,

"The special task of the World Security Forces is peace-keeping. ... The Forces operate as a police force rather than an army. Their primary objective is effective peace-keeping action without loss of life or permanent damage to individuals. The subordination of the Forces to the multiple safeguard system of the WHS [world system, ie, United Nations], and its specialized training and equipment, makes it virtually impossible that its leaders could take power into their own hands and render the Forces independent of the system. Operating within the system, however, they can effectively prevent the upcropping of the 'Hitler-problem' by commanding just enough deterrence capability to offset the power of a would-be aggressor."

If one didn't know better, one would think this book was written and published within the last ten years. The verbiage has been every day fare in the media for some time now. A Strategy for the Future ... was published in 1974. Still think what is happening is mere coincidence or a natural progression of events?

As Laszlo contemplates the "Hitler-problem," to what is he referring, what does he mean? Systems governance, by its very construct, lends itself easily to the ambitions of would-be dictators. While Hitler rose to power in Germany, Lenin came to power in Russia by force. Both Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. were built on the tenets of systems governance. Laszlo, in his book, is setting down, idealistically, how to suppress the possibility of a would-be dictator.

But what if the "Hitler-problem" didn't emerge but already existed at a time when the world system was coming into fruition? What if the "Hitler-problem," after one war and a grace period of say ten years, still refused to conform, making it apparent that he is, and will continue to be, a radical untamed element threatening the congruence of the entire system? Remember that systems governance, by its very construct, must be all inclusive, that radical elements must either conform or be eradicated.

Is this war with Saddam Hussein really about weapons of mass destruction or is it really about the fact that Hussein was given the option of conforming following the first Gulf War, but refused, making him a radical element throwing a cog in the wheel of the smooth transformation to a world system of government in which all "nation-states" are subordinate to the world system?

Consider this: Iraq has some of the richest oil deposits in the world, making them a key player in both the world economy and world ecology ... two of the four world systems that must be kept in balance under systems governance. In the first Gulf War, while the opportunity certainly existed, no attempt was made to "take Baghdad" or Hussein. In this, the second Gulf War, a big red target has been painted on Saddam Hussein and his minions; they are wanted dead or alive, preferably dead if one can judge by the 2,000 lb. bunker buster bombs dropped in a pre-emptive strike when it was learned Hussein would be in a particular bunker at a particular time. The media and American commanders have characterized Hussein as hated by the majority of the Iraqi people. But those same people have not exactly welcomed the American forces into their midst. While the weapons of mass destruction may exist, they have yet to surface. While there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a sadistic tyrant and dictator, the evidence that he has had anything to do with the terrorist acts against the United States is flimsy at best.

As the days have gone by, Bush's statements have turned from weapons of mass destruction to freeing the Iraqi people. The campaign, in fact, is being called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." That title doesn't exactly lend itself to the conjuring up of weapons of mass destruction. Even though there is no argument that Hussein is a sadistic tyrant and dictator, even though we can definitely sympathize with the Iraqi people in this regard, for the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of a country based on what we think of the leaders of that country is the definition of an invasion, and act of aggression. We have no business in Iraq under those terms.

While I would hope that every American would support and pray for our military personnel in the line of fire and who have been taken prisoner in that region of the world, such does not equate to supporting or approving of the actions of our leaders who put them there.

Sources:—

Laszlo, Ervin; A Strategy for the Future; The Systems Approach to World Order; New York: George Braziller; 1974.

McNamara, Robert; In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam; New York: Time Books; 1995.