Dr. King and Iraq
2008-04-04
By Brian Gilmore
“War is not the answer.”
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
April 4, 1967 – Riverside Church, Harlem, New York
On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before he was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous speech at the Riverside Church in Harlem, New York opposing the war in Vietnam. King’s address that evening, entitled, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” was unpopular at the time; yet, it is the kind of speech that contains countless parallels to the ongoing debate about the current war in Iraq and how the war should be brought to a conclusion.
“I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King noted early on in his remarks. King added that he had come to make a “passionate plea to my beloved nation” and to speak to his “fellow Americans.”
King’s speech that night was more than a moral plea for his country to end its involvement in Vietnam, and to bring a “halt to this tragic war.” King’s words were those of a statesman, an American citizen who knew he had enough influence and principled reach to make war and violence an issue that had to be confronted. He questioned whether the American military were “liberators” in Vietnam (“They must see Americans as strange liberators,” King exclaimed) and reminded the nation that the continued involvement in Vietnam would breed “hatred” and would ruin America’s image in the world. Does any of this sound familiar when you consider today’s quandary known as Iraq?
Yet, while King’s words are missing from the overall debate over whether the U.S. should leave Iraq as quickly as possible and end the occupation and conflict, what is mostly missing is his stature as an American with an uncompromised moral voice. King is not here and there is no one else available who possesses his characteristics to tilt the debate over the war.
It is one thing for politicians to call for the war to end after checking to see which way the political winds are blowing; it is quite another for a public figure with moral authority who has committed to a path of peace to make the call. It has a certain power that cannot be denied.
Launch Slide Show!
The current major political players standing in the wings and waiting for George W. Bush’s departure don’t qualify. All three lack the ingredients that Dr. King possessed when he stood in the pulpit at Riverside Church one year before his death: the commitment and ability to end the war, the moral authority, and an abiding credibility with the American public.
Presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton doesn’t come close. She originally voted for the war so her calls to end the war now fail miserably. It doesn’t matter about her will; her credibility is simply non-existent.
Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for President, was in favor of the invasion from the beginning and remains steadfast in support of the occupation of Iraq and the ongoing violence and death. Thus, his presence in the dilemma over ending the war is useless.
Senator Barack Obama, the Presidential candidate who spoke against the war as far back as 2002, does come close. He did not vote for the war because he couldn’t. He openly opposed the war from the beginning and he probably has the commitment to end it. This works.
Yet, Senator Obama doesn’t have the track record like Dr. King simply because he hasn’t had the chance to lay it all on the line for a singular cause like King. History, in other words, has not yet come his way. He is, as a candidate, vying for a chance to become an American statesman of historical relevance like King.
Two weeks ago, the South African poet, Dennis Brutus probably provided some of what is missing in the Iraq debate in America. Brutus, a long time international human rights activist, spoke out fiercely against the war when he was in Washington D.C. for the “Split This Rock Poetry Festival.” Brutus called for Americans to stop paying their taxes in an effort to stop the financing of the war. Brutus’ dissent is a dissent that would likely come from someone like King; it changes the discussion.
But, while Brutus presents the necessary civil disobedience that King exuded, Brutus is a poet and activist barely known by most of the world. No way can he make the case as a statesman for America. This idea of King as a statesman is also important to note for other reasons when one reconsiders his Riverside Church speech.
Reading the speech from Riverside Church, one observes that King not only called for the war to end in Vietnam in his speech but he spelled out how the war would end. This included a cease fire, negotiations with the Vietnamese government, and then finally, the withdrawal of all troops. His speech was, thus, protest and policy.
So who, in the world, or in America, could make the case for America to simply lay down its arms, declare a cease fire, negotiate with the Iraqi government for a transition of control, and then a full withdrawal and be taken seriously? Colin Powell? Powell probably could have stopped the war from the beginning but now, he would be rebuked easy because of his tragic United Nations speech making the case for the invasion in February 2003.
Nelson Mandela? He possesses some of King’s credibility but he is one, not an American, and two, retired and waning in influence.
So who can stop this war?
Dr. King is not here to save us from ourselves. Forty years ago, someone rejected the world he wanted. We know that if he were here, he would have railed loud against this war, in words, and in deeds. Perhaps, all we have are his words against war from the speech at Riverside Church to guide our actions:
"We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.”
Without this level of discourse from one man, it will likely take all of us to end the war once and for all.
Brian Gilmore is a writer and attorney in Washington, D.C.
