NYCivic - Call Me Cassandra

Reflections at the Brink of War
By Henry J. Stern
March 17, 2003

   With war appearing imminent at this time, I ask you to excuse me for not writing about the city budget crisis, which seems to get a little worse with every new report of declining tax revenues, non-existing union concessions, and the failure, as yet, to reduce expenditures substantially.   Someday, the Mayor will have to go on television and tell us about the city's financial plight and its inevitable consequences. He should wait until the war ends, or nobody will listen.

The ever-helpful City Council passed its own anti-war resolution last Wednesday. Although the text was watered down, the message basically questioned Adminstration policies. Unlike other foreign policy pronouncements of the Council, there is some relevance here. If we lose the war, or stimulate actions by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, the city could be wiped out, including the city council. No more lulus, no name changes, no resolutions, and how would the United States be able to conduct foreign policy?

Seventeen Council members* asked to be listed as opposing the resolution.   None was from Manhattan, the borough that was attacked on 9/11. The 17 included Majority Leader Joel Rivera and Madeline Provenzano of the Bronx. Rivera is a surprise since his father, Assemblyman Jose Rivera, is anti-war. The same familial dissonance has occurred in Congress, where Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) supports the war, while his father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) opposes it. I wonder how the Senator's late father, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, would feel about the issue. He opposed the war with Hitler for several years, while he represented us at the Court of St. James.

"No" votes from Queens were Councilmembers Addabbo, Avella, Gallagher, Gennaro, Katz, Sears, Weprin and Vallone, Jr. The eight comprise a majority of the Queens delegation. From Brooklyn, Councilmembers Felder, Fidler (two different people), Nelson and Recchia dissented. And the Staten Island delegation unanimously opposed the resolution; Councilmembers McMahon, Oddo and Lanza all voting "No".   Two were absent, Helen Foster (Bx) and Eva Moskowitz (Man). Councilman Jennings of Brooklyn told me he was against the resolution, opposed it in committee, but didn't go to the place of registry in time to be counted. You can call him the 18th negative vote.

There is a certain oddity in the fact that a majority of the legislature of the city which was the principal victim of terrorism now sides with France and does not wish to support war in a different but related instance. One can also ask how the Bush Administration will react to this demonstration of nonsupport from a City which urgently needs federal assistance. Hopefully, it will make no difference in the support that we wish to receive from Washington. But certainly it will make no difference in any decisions they make about Iraq.

Opposition to war is nothing new here. You may recall, either from history or from "The Gangs of New York", the rioting against the Civil War in 1863. The rioters killed hundreds, mainly African-Americans, and were only subdued when President Lincoln sent an army regiment that had just fought at Gettysburg. Mayor Fernando Wood had strong Southern sympathies, and did not support the Union cause.

In World War II, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia was a vocal advocate of war, long before the United States entered it in December 1941. He took particular pleasure in denouncing Hitler, and was considered a personal enemy by the Nazis.

In the Gulf War, Mayor Dinkins was reported to be at first reluctant to support a parade honoring the returning soldiers, but he relented, and promised to have "the mother of all parades". A large and noisy parade celebrated the American victory.

Back to Washington: In the United States Senate, Democratic support for this war was substantially greater than there was for the 1991 Gulf War. Twelve years ago, the Democrats divided 42-8 against the war, with New York's Daniel Patrick Moynihan voting No. (D'Amato, the Republican, voted Yes, and the Republicans provided the majority to support Bush 41.)

In 2002, the majority of Democrats voted to authorize the war, the division being 28-22. Both senators from New York, Schumer and Clinton, supported the President on that vote. If we had not gone into Kuwait, and Saddam had taken it over, "Iraq's 19th province", as he called it, the United Nations would never have passed all those disarmament resolutions over the last twelve years which they declined to enforce. Those resolutions were part of the cease-fire after the 100-hour war, under that bargain, the Allies (at the time) did not proceed north to Baghdad. Almost everyone now supports what we did in Kuwait.

During the intervening Clinton administration, the 78-day bombing of Serbia was not brought before the United Nations or Congress. Nonetheless, it succeeded in bringing about the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo, a province of the former Yugoslavia. Under the War Powers Act, Congressional approval was not required for an air war, but it would have been required for a ground war of a certain length.

In bombing Belgrade, the US acted on behalf of NATO, which was formed to protect Europe from Russia. While the conflict was under way, Congress granted funding for it. The European Union, while favoring the departure of Serbian troops, had not implemented its resolutions with air power, so they were unable to persuade President Milosevich to withdraw troops.   Milosevich now resides at The Hague, where he awaits trial for war crimes.

Most everyone wants to see a free Iraq, with a minimum of human suffering. On how to achieve that result, we understand that people differ. We also, primarily, want the United States and New York to be safe from the horrors to which we have been subjected, and which have been threatened again. That requires the destruction of the forces that have attacked us. History will determine whether the liberation of Iraq will help achieve that goal. Meanwhile, under our Constitution, these matters are decided by elected officials, the President and Congress.

We do not presume to tell the President what to do, especially when we are not informed of many facts that influence his decision. But I thought a relatively simple overview of some of the history might be helpful in informing the viewpoint of anyone who has persevered and read this far.

You are, of course, invited to send in your facts and opinions on this very important question, and, within bounds of decency, your comments will appear on our website, www.nycivic.org, directly below this article. This is one way in which we show the difference between our system of government and some others around the world.

The Ninth Circuit notwithstanding, God Bless America and New York.

* We list the 17 here because the list has not been published elsewhere. It is probably the most important Council division this term on an ideological and neighborhood basis. Since it was a voice vote, the names of those who voted in the affirmative were not recorded, but the 32 listed sponsors of the resolution were Councilmembers Baez, Barron, Boyland, Brewer, Clarke, Comrie, Davis, DeBlasio, Dilan, Espada, Foster, Gerson, Gioia, Gonzalez, Jackson, Koppell, Liu, Lopez, Martinez, Speaker Gifford Miller, Monserrate, Perkins, Quinn, Reed, Reyna, Sanders, Seabrook, Serrano, Stewart, Weprin, Vann, and Yassky. Sponsorship does not necessarily assure support of the final version; Councilman Weprin, for example, voted 'No', and others may have remained silent during the voice vote.