Was the Gulf War a Just War?

by Harry Browne

February 20, 1991

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy, 1961

President Kennedy's ringing declaration of war against the enemies of liberty has echoed down the decades.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to know which are the friends and which are the foes, because the U.S. government keeps shuffling them around.

Although Joseph Stalin had already established his credentials as a mass murderer, the Soviet Union was pictured as our heroic ally during World War II. But after the war it was once again the enemy — the justification for trillions of dollars in defense costs.

The Germans, every last one of whom had been considered morally responsible for the Holocaust, became our friends and the bulwark of freedom in Europe. And the "dirty yellow devils" of World War II were de-colorized and made our allies in Asia. Throughout the Cold War the roles kept shifting. Richard Nixon, who had opposed Red China for so many years, wound up drinking champagne with Mao Tse-tung and Chou En Lai — and he joined forces with them against the Soviet Union. (This in turn caused the Chinese on Taiwan to be reclassified from brave freedom-fighters to predator merchants who flood the U.S. with cheap goods.)

Then Mikhail Gorbachev showed up, and the Soviet Union was our friend again. The U.S. accepted him as an ally because he claimed he was replacing the old Soviet system of rule by the whim of a dictator with a state governed by "carefully drafted laws."

Now the laws have been carefully drafted and implemented. They allow the state to seize anyone's property at will and the president to rule by decree, while private business can operate only within the most narrow bounds. Dissent will be allowed, but only when it doesn't bother the dictator. When the new laws were announced, Soviet tanks and soldiers invaded Lithuania to deliver the news.{1}

Mr. Gorbachev's new oppression is particularly awkward for us because it's too soon after the Tiananmen Square massacre to embrace the Chinese again.

Assuring the Success of Liberty

During the past 45 years, the U.S. government has perceived threats to freedom and peace in virtually every corner of the Earth and reacted accordingly. The government has shipped money, equipment, and soldiers to over a hundred nations.

There have been U.S. military campaigns in Greece, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, and Panama — plus, I'm sure, other countries that I've forgotten. In addition, there has been less-direct meddling in Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Philippines, and dozens of other countries.

In every case the cause was just, and the issue was a clear-cut, black-and-white case of good vs. evil. Each crusade had a limited and specific goal — which would be achieved quickly and at no great cost.


But, in fact, no lasting victory has ever been accomplished.

After every crusade, the evil that justified the bloodshed remained — or, as in the destruction of Germany and Japan in World War II, was replaced by an even greater danger. Every temporary burden has become permanent, and has been piled on top of all the temporary burdens we were already suffering.

The U.S. invaded Panama ("Operation Just Cause") to capture Manuel Noriega and round up the drug-smuggling evidence necessary to convict him in an American court — an unprecedented act. It turns out that no evidence was found, and Mr. Noriega still hasn't been tried. It appears that a lot of people died in Panama for nothing more than a boost in George Bush's approval rating.

The Panamanian outcome wasn't unique. The Korean stalemate, undertaken to demonstrate that aggression can't succeed, didn't deter the communists from invading — and eventually conquering — South Vietnam and Cambodia.

Nor did the Vietnam war accomplish anything. The dominoes kept on falling — with or without American resistance.

U.S. Marines died to save Lebanon, but the Syrians overran it anyway. After all the U.S. maneuvering in the Philippines, the government there is still worthless and corrupt. After years of U.S. military aid to force a free election, Nicaragua continues to be run mostly by the hated Sandinistas.

The U.S. is still sending foreign aid to African dictators, bribing other governments to participate in the Middle East Coalition, and keeping troops at outposts all over the world. American soldiers still patrol the streets of Panama and Grenada. And even though the Cold War was declared to be finished a year ago, American troops remain hunkered down in Europe.

Every campaign began with the assumption that the crusade would be brief and the benefits lasting. But after sacrificing millions of lives and trillions of dollars, what does the U.S. have to show for it?

The Perpetual War Continues

Now America is at war in the Middle East.

What will it cost in lives and dollars? When will it end? After the war, how long will U.S. troops have to remain in the Gulf to keep the peace? For how many years will American taxpayers be bled for the costs? George Melloan, a Wall Street Journal columnist, has suggested that:

Iraq should be occupied, primarily by the U.S., Britain, and France, with sufficient power retained to intimidate Syria and, if necessary, Iran. . . . Military government of the type that established democracy in West Germany and Japan after World War II is what is needed.{2}

Even if that suggestion is ignored, American troops probably will remain in the Mideast for years — possibly decades. But that doesn't mean there will be peace, freedom, or "democracy" in the region.

And since the causes and crusades never stop, there will be another urgent need somewhere else as soon as this one gets stale — or maybe even before then. Wherever the battlefield, the justification will be so compelling that we'll have no choice but to fight — to repel aggression, to defend freedom, or for some other cause.

This is what historian Charles Beard in 1947 so prophetically labeled the "perpetual war for perpetual peace." To the war-makers, there will always be an urgent reason to go to war to secure the peace.{3}


What if it had been your son or daughter who died in the invasion of Panama? Would you feel today that he had died in a worthy cause?

Suppose a loved one had gone with the U.S. Marines to keep the peace in Lebanon and died there. What would his death have accomplished?

Now Americans are dying in the Arabian desert. For what great purpose are they giving their lives? Five years hence, what could be said to a wife to make her husband's death in 1991 seem to have been necessary? If the Middle East continues to be a cauldron of dictators and wars, how could you persuade her that her loss served a higher objective than the love of a man and a woman for each other?

The Middle East casualties are human lives — as precious to other people as those of your children, your relatives, and your loved ones are to you. People are dying, and the survivors will be no better off for the sacrifices.

Of course, the war-makers consider the deaths to be "regrettable," but they don't volunteer to sacrifice themselves. It's just too easy to talk about the necessity of "dying for a principle" when they aren't the ones who will die.

So often I've heard someone say "there are some principles we should be willing to die for." Or "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." Such statements roll off the tongue easily because the speaker assumes that he won't be the one to die. What he's saying is that his objectives are important enough for someone else to die.

And if someone would choose to die for his country, I would pity him. Life is the most precious thing there is. It's sad to think that someone's life held so little pleasure and meaning that he would willingly sacrifice it for a cause.

Iraqi People

Volunteer soldiers are a minority among the casualties. The biggest devastation is being visited on innocent civilians and on foreign soldiers who've been drafted — people who didn't ask to be part of a war.

So far, most of the dying people are Iraqis. Since their religion and culture are so alien to us, it's easy to think of them as being somehow less human than the people we know.

Both the U.S. and Iraqi governments have strong propaganda motives to exaggerate the differences between them and us. Both governments would like us to think that the Iraqis are fanatics who will fight to the death to support Saddam Hussein.

But most likely the majority of Iraqis live in terror of their own government — just as the majority of Germans did during the reign of Adolf Hitler.

The Iraqis are human beings like us — people with families, striving for life and love. And they are dying in greater and greater numbers as the war rolls on. Even those who survive will have had their homes turned to ashes and their lives devastated.

Are we so godlike that we can condemn innocent people to die for the Emir of Kuwait and his 70 wives, for Saudi Arabia's borders, for George Bush's vanity, or for other causes they never agreed to support?

It's easy to be cavalier about the casualties. But, at the very least, your homeland or family ought to be at stake before you would consider taking the life of even one innocent person.

Glibness & Death

To personalize the war, describing it as not against the Iraqi people but against Saddam, is morally equivalent to bombing a prison because one has a grievance against its sadistic warden.{4}

Robert Higgs, 1991

One of the worst things about war is the hysteria it feeds — leading people to say and do things that ordinarily would shock them.

The common "man-on-the-street" sentiment seems to be "I think they should level Baghdad to get that S.O.B."

One columnist put it this way:

There hasn't been much reason to say, "I'm proud to be an American" lately, but the bombing of Baghdad provided one.{5}

People talk about what must be done to Saddam Hussein. But the people being hurt are the innocent civilians and soldiers who would prefer to have nothing to do with either side of the argument.

To carpet-bomb Baghdad would be to murder thousands of innocents — merely for the satisfaction of getting Saddam Hussein to (as George Bush put it) "leave Kuwait with his tail between his legs."

Understand how politicians think: They've passed laws to prohibit the military from sending an assassin into Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein, but they have no qualms about killing the thousands of innocent people who are forced to serve him.


[George Bush] was clearly bent on war all along. But he got his foot in the door by pretending otherwise. First he put troops in Saudi Arabia on the pretext that his sole purpose was to prevent an Iraqi invasion. Once they were there, he switched to a new goal: the "liberation" of Kuwait. Now he says his purpose is not the destruction of Iraq, even as he hints of a war crimes trial for Saddam Hussein and Baghdad is close to starvation and epidemic.

Mr. Bush's rationales for war — stopping aggression, protecting our vital interests, oil, jobs, New World Order and sheer altruism — have been notoriously kaleidoscopic. The sheer abundance of reasons implies that none is the real reason. Yet even this incoherence served a purpose: It prevented debate from focusing on any single argument. His critics were forced to run around stamping out one verbal brushfire after another, as he kept starting more. If he had stuck to one clear reason, he would have lost the debate

Joseph Sobran, 1991

If you're going to kill a lot of people, you'd better have a good reason.

So why is America at war?

There seems no shortage of reasons. In fact, George Bush has come up with dozens of reasons.

Secure Borders

Fantastic political boundaries are set up carelessly and arbitrarily, but once they are established, however casually and lightheartedly, they take on some mysterious sanctity; to violate them "breaks the heart of the world." Every border war becomes a world war, and world peace disappears from the scene.

By this absurd policy, internationalism and interventionism invite and insure "perpetual war for perpetual peace," since any move which threatens petty nations and these mystic boundaries becomes an "aggressive war" which must not be tolerated, even though to oppose it may break the back of the world

Harry Elmer Barnes, 1953

The first reason given for the aggressive U.S. response was that Iraq had outraged the world by failing to respect the Kuwaiti border.

And thus began the moral posturing.

President Bush requires that the sovereignty of Kuwait be inviolate, but not the freedom of Lithuania or Latvia. The reason for his Baltic pacifism, of course, is that he wouldn't dare pick a fight with a power big enough to fight on equal terms. You call Saddam Hussein a "Hitler"; you call Mikhail Gorbachev "Sir".

I'm not suggesting he should challenge the Soviet Union over the Baltic states. But it's fraudulent to claim there's a sacred principle at stake in Kuwait, but not in Lithuania.

Our Ally Kuwait

But, we are told, Kuwait has been our friend often siding with the U.S. in quarrels involving other Middle Eastern states.

But why was the U.S. involved in those quarrels in the first place? And what future quarrels do we have to prepare for? The Middle East has been a center of turmoil for hundreds of years — and especially since 1945. But every new president brings into office the colossal conceit that he can sort things out and make them right for everyone.

Prior to being invaded last August, Kuwait was the second largest donor to the Palestinian Liberation Organization — the terrorist PLO. And until Yassir Arafat took the side of Iraq in the current conflict, the largest donor was Saudi Arabia.{8}

The fact is that there is no "right" or "wrong" side among the endless quarrels and shifting political sands of the Middle East. The whole business is none of our business.


The only practical reason offered for our intervention is the idea that we need Middle East oil.

Oil is vital to the world. But does it justify killing thousands — or millions — of innocent people?

Will the U.S. go to war if the Soviet Union decides to withhold platinum from the market? Or if South Africa chooses not to sell us any more uranium?

Actually, as columnist Stephen Chapman has pointed out, neither the supply of oil nor the price of it was altered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. What caused the price of oil to soar was the rash U.S. response — which threatened a Gulf war that would endanger the supply of oil. Even with all the blustering, however, the price of oil eventually settled down.

The assumption — as faulty here as in so many amateur economic analyses — is that owning or controlling the oil makes Saddam Hussein rich. It doesn't. Selling the oil would make him rich. He has as much reason to price it at the market and make it available to us as we have to buy it.

But even if he were crazy enough to blow up all the oil fields of the Middle East, America could survive without them.

What makes it difficult to survive without imported oil are the absurd U.S. environmental policies that preclude drilling for oil in pristine U.S. areas that only one American in a thousand will ever see.

If George Bush would stand up to environmental fanatics as fearlessly as he does to desert dictators, we could have both oil and peace.

The New World Order

We call Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega a serious threat to our interests because he is manifestly not a serious threat at all. If there were any chance that he could light up the skies over Washington as we are lighting up the skies over Baghdad, Mr. Bush would not be taunting him and calling him a Hitler; he would be negotiating and posing for photographers with him, and calling him "our partner in the peace process."{9}

Joseph Sobran, 1991

Eventually President Bush lit upon the idea that this crusade is to establish a New World Order — one in which aggressors will know that they face sure and swift retaliation.

But we already have that. We've had it since 1918, when World War I made the world safe for democracy (at a cost of 26 million lives), and the League of Nations was established to guarantee peace and the security of all boundaries.

If not since then, at least since 1945 when the winning of World War II bestowed the Four Freedoms upon everyone (at a cost of 36 million lives), and the United Nations guaranteed the safety of all people.

Or at least since the U.S. proved in Korea and Vietnam (at a combined cost of 112 thousand American lives alone) that no boundary could be violated with impunity.{10}

To enforce the New World Order, we have the Coalition.

It includes the Soviet Union — which unfortunately can't send troops to help repel the evil Iraqis because the troops are busy right now tyrannizing Lithuania.

The Coalition also includes Syria, which thoughtfully interrupted its destruction of Lebanon long enough to send its respects (but not its money or much of its manpower) to our crusade. Maybe if Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad continues to hold Mr. Bush's coat, the president will remove Syria from the State Department's list of terrorist countries.

The U.S. has had to buy the support of almost every government that has either joined the Coalition or agreed not to oppose it — from bribing Egypt with $7 billion to giving trade concessions to the Chinese. Your tax dollars at work on behalf of the New World Order.

The surprising thing is not just that the president can speak of a New World Order with a straight face, but that so many people actually take him seriously.

The Modern-Day Hitler

George Bush has labeled Saddam Hussein the new Hitler, creating a further reason we have to stop him now — right now — because if we don't, he'll take over the whole world tomorrow. Remember Munich.

Neville Chamberlain performed an invaluable service to war-makers. By agreeing at Munich to Adolf Hitler's conquest of part of Czechoslovakia a year before the outbreak of World War II, he provided a metaphor that every war-maker can use with impunity: "Don't let Kuwait [or Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, South Africa, the North Pole, you name it] be another Munich." We either stop the madman now, or we'll have to do it later when it will be much harder.

No one has to bother proving that Mr. Chamberlain's actions at Munich led to — or aggravated — World War II; it is simply assumed that they did. However, some people have suggested (also without convincing proof) that the Munich agreement gave England time to prepare itself for World War II, and thereby prevented a Nazi victory.

Whatever the case, Hitler and Munich provide the perfect metaphors whenever anyone wants to meddle in a foreign dispute.

The argument always assumes that the new Hitler will be stopped. But many of the previous Hitlers (in Korea and Vietnam, for example) managed to survive such attempts. The original Hitler was stopped, eventually, but at a cost of millions of lives.

Stopping Aggression

Another reason George Bush has offered for his crusade is that we must establish the precedent that aggression of any kind will not be tolerated.

It's ironic that the first Allied gain of the war was the retaking of the Kuwaiti island of Qaruh — which Coalition member Saudi Arabia then claimed for itself.

Six days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Saudi and Iraqi oil ministers held a public meeting to announce that they were deciding which of the two countries would get each of the Kuwaiti islands.{11}

And now Syria, Iran, and Turkey are eagerly awaiting the end of the war so that they can fight over the remains of Iraq.

So which aggressor will the New World Order have to repel next — Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia?

Choose for Yourself

Of course, reasonable people can disagree about any of these points.

And if someone believes strongly enough that war is justified, I wouldn't try to stop him from volunteering or hiring out for a campaign to liberate Kuwait. Nor would I object if he wants to contribute money to the project.

But I don't believe that anyone's belief is justification for sending others to die, nor for confiscating the money of others to finance the war.


America can only be harmed by this war. Our kids killed, our liberties suppressed, our taxes raised, the government engorged, the recession deepened, our Constitution shredded — and you can hardly wait for the shooting to start.

Ad by Jews & Christians Against a Mideast War, 1990

Is there an alternative to this war?

Yes, there is. But it isn't the sanctions that were imposed by the U.S. and the United Nations. Sanctions are ridiculous. Like war, they're a way that one group of people forces another to pay for a cause favored by the first group. The sanctions hurt innocent people in Iraq and innocent businessmen elsewhere. Why should they have to sacrifice for someone's political objectives?

Sanctions are an instrument of selective indignation. Whenever they're invoked against anyone, similar villains are conveniently ignored.

No sanctions were considered when Soviet tanks rolled into Lithuania and Latvia. George Bush was too busy giving speeches against aggression to pay much attention to the Baltics. He had time only to ponder whether to reconsider sending the billions of dollars worth of free food he'd promised to Mr. Gorbachev.

The alternative to war is to do nothing. There is no reason for the U.S. to make things right in the Middle East — nor is there any hope that it can do so. If Saddam Hussein is dispatched to Moslem Hell and Iraq becomes a model democracy, there will be another crisis somewhere nearby next year.

No Foreign War Is a Just Cause

I'm not saying I'd support the war if the situation were different.

I don't believe in killing innocent people. And I don't like to see anyone deciding under what circumstances other people should die for a cause.{12}

The only time to consider force is when the United States people are threatened directly. Short of that, I'm not likely to be persuaded that force of any kind is called for.

An attack on the U.S. is more likely to come by missile than by an invading armada. If someday Saddam Hussein will have missiles, then someday we should have a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). If there is a valid reason to have a government, it must be to defend against intruders — not to become an intruder.

SDI would cost a fraction of the bill we're paying for troops, bombers, missiles, and the like. But politicians apparently reject it precisely for that reason — because it would be less likely to become the boondoggles that national defense and worldwide alliances have become. (Those who laughed at "Star Wars" and now praise the Patriot anti-missile missiles are trying very hard to avoid making any connection between the two.)


This Administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America, and I urge Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort. It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won.

Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964 {13}

All the reasons discussed for sending America to war assume that the U.S. government will achieve its objectives, that no unintended consequences will ensue, and that the only question is whether a particular motive is sufficient reason to start a war.

But this is government we're talking about.

The War on Poverty has been raging for 25 years, but now we're told there are more poor people than ever. For almost as long, our privacy and money have been sacrificed to wage the War on Drugs, but not one city has been liberated. There are hundreds of gun-control laws in the country, but murders with firearms continue as always.

The government can't seem to educate our children, it certainly won't make the environment pristine, and it doesn't deliver the mail on time.

And yet, for some reason, people who know all those things believe this same government will accomplish its military and diplomatic objectives in the Middle East perfectly. Even though every other government program produces terrible side effects, somehow this one will miraculously achieve just what you want (whatever that is) without lighting the fuse for World War III (or Police Action #79) in the process.

People thought the same about Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua, and many other places.


War is the health of the State.

Randolph Bourne, 1917

Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the only benefit of the war has been to provide a diversion from George Bush's domestic problems.

The war has given him a sky-high approval rating and taken the recession off the front page. In November his reelection seemed unlikely; today it seems assured. (However, the election is almost two years away, and by then today's euphoria may have long since been forgotten.)

George Bush has his own reasons for war, and only he knows what they are. The stated objectives — reacting to atrocities, guaranteeing low oil prices, and the like — are merely window dressing.

The Unfolding of George Bush

It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self delusion. They are constantly and, for the most part, sincerely assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exhilaration which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and ignorant.

Calvin Coolidge, 1929

During the presidential campaign of 1988, I considered Mr. Bush to be an intelligent man — a gentleman in fact (even though the press tried to portray his campaign as mean-spirited).

During his first year in office, I continued to consider him a gentleman, although I regretted his lack of firm principles. His highest ambition apparently was to please special-interest leaders and set a record for approval ratings in the opinion polls.

Last year, when he retracted his "no new taxes" pledge, I thought he was an idiot for discarding the only campaign issue that distinguished him from his opponents. I had to seriously question the intelligence of a man who could so easily be taken in by a gang of Congressional con men.

Now I consider him dangerous. He doesn't have the courage to say no to environmental busybodies and assure that America produces sufficient oil, but he's willing to have hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Americans and tens of thousands of innocent civilians die in order to obtain foreign oil.

He has demonstrated that special-interest support is more precious than human life. He has already invaded Panama and the Middle East, and he has at least two more years to continue playing God. 

I guess we should have stopped him at Munich.


My opposition to the war isn't based on the fact that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia support the PLO, that Coalition-ally Syria is a terrorist state, that sufficient oil is available within the U.S. without fighting over Gulf oil, that President Bush is spouting dangerous nonsense about a New World Order, or that Saudi Arabia itself is salivating over Kuwait like a mongoose at a cobra convention.

All these contradictions and hypocrisies are standard procedure for politics and international relations. President Bush, Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, and the other actors in this dreadful tragedy are simply doing what they were born to do. And we can't stop them.

But we debase ourselves when we support their schemes — when we nod our heads and pretend we don't really see the contradictions and self-interest lurking under the high-minded oratory. And that is why you should separate yourself from all this — from their world, a world in which coercion, intrigue, double-dealing, violence, and lies are the rule.

You don't resort to deceit and violence to get what you want in your business or your personal life. Why should you respect people who do? You're better than the politicians and the war-makers; there's no reason to sink to their level and endorse their jingoism.

I'm not suggesting that you join the protestors. (You can meet a better class of people at a massage parlor.) I'm not even suggesting you write letters to the editor or your Congressman. In fact, it doesn't matter whether you ever say a word out loud in opposition.

What's important is that you don't allow yourself to be one of them — that, for your own self-respect, you don't lend your support to the hysteria of the lynch mob.

What is important is that you can still distinguish between what is true and what is deceitful, between those who are your equals and those who have no respect for the lives and property of others.

It's what you believe that's important. What others believe is their problem.


By following the policy we have adhered to since the days of Washington we have prospered beyond precedent; we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness. . . .

But if we should involve ourselves in the web of European politics, in a war which could effect nothing . . . where, then, would be the last hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world? Far better it is . . . that, adhering to our wise pacific system, and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our own lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amidst the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe.

Henry Clay, 1852

Seldom in history has a country emerged that was free, prosperous, and peaceful amidst a stormy, poverty-stricken world of virtual slaves.

You would think that Americans would be so thankful to live in an isolated country without war that they'd react bitterly to any motivation to go looking for trouble overseas.

But reformers are never willing to leave well enough alone. Instead of enjoying the privilege of living in a country that could be an example to the world, they want to take away more of our freedoms in order to "defend freedom" — or nibble away at our prosperity on the pretense of making us even more prosperous.

Or condemn innocent people to death so that the world will be safe for innocent people.

Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne, 1624

Somebody quiet that damn bell.

Harry Browne, 1991


{1} San Francisco Examiner, January 27, 1991, page A1. [back]

{2} "What Mideast Arabs Need Is a Real Peace," The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991, page A13. [back]

{3} Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, page viii, Caxton Printers 1953 edition. [back]

{4} Liberty magazine, February 1991, page 19. [back]

{5} Bill Mandel, San Francisco Examiner, January 27, 1991, page B3. [back]

{6} Syndicated column, January 31, 1991. [back]

{7} Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, page 657, Caxton Printers 1953 edition. [back]

{8} The PLO's finances are discussed in "PLO, Inc." by Daniel Pipes, The American Spectator, February 1991, page 27. [back]

{9} Syndicated column, January 24, 1991. [back]

{10} The World War deaths are for all participating countries, and are from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971 edition. Korean and Vietnam deaths are for U.S. forces alone, and are from The World Almanac, 1991. [back]

{11} San Francisco Examiner, January 26, 1991, page A1 & February 3, 1991, page A1. [back]

{12} In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I'm not sure I believe in killing anyone. [back]

{13} State of the Union Message, January 8, 1964. [back]