From THE VN/VO:Well, now we finally know this is a real war here in Iraq. Middle-class college students, aging rock stars and the Hollywood glitterati are dusting off the old protest signs and appearing in droves wherever a CNN camera is to be found. To be fair, of course, we're seeing the tired old rhetoric from the Administration and their pro-war throngs about how un-American these protesters are, and how dangerous they are to the cause of freedom across the globe.
The opposite, however, is actually true. Today's batch of protesters are a problem. If, indeed, this war is a mistake, it is the anti-war protesters that are actually most dangerous to their own cause.
In the spirit of fair opinion journalism, I suppose I should disclose my stance on the war. Otherwise I assume many readers would first scan this article to find that information anyway, and all of the lofty and well thought-out paragraphs before it would just go to waste. I must first warn you, however: my revelation will neither make you swell with the gratification of concurrence nor inspire you write angry letters laden with partisan talking points.
I'm neither. Ok, that is not entirely accurate. At the time of this writing, I am about 52% for and 48% against, and slowly moving toward "against." See, I told you - not very stirring. Here's the trade-off, though - I am still angry about "the war," as it were. So keep reading anyway.
The current debate on the war itself, in America, has unfortunately become very near meaningless. While I won't excuse either side from this concern, I lay most of the blame on the anti-war protester crowd. This blame has nothing to do with the message itself. Protesters - being probably the most important voice on any issue in a democracy - you see, also hold most of the responsibility in steering the discussion on said issues. Without protesters we all just silently conform.
The anti-war movement - while certainly holding up its end of being loud and recognized - is ushering very little discussion on the substantial content of the matter at hand. I've certainly heard questions raised about the war. However, the mere existence of questions does not an intelligent dialogue - towards a real end - make.
Maybe I am alone in this, but I have been trying to base my feelings toward this war on a little more than "let's go kick some enemy butt" versus "this war is a lie, and we need to stop killing our soldiers." Let's face it, while the wording is often a lot more winded, that is about the entirety of the debate right now.
Article comments
1 - Dr. Kurt
Some thoughtful ideas, here, but a little fuzzy on some details. For instance, you did not address the morality issue - is it morally acceptable to use violence? If so, when? And when not? This does, indeed, get us into some grey areas - the areas that most pundits, politicians, and posters avoid. Some of us, while accepting an occasional need for organized violance, question just how many children should be starved, maimed, and murdered in the pursuit of our political agendas. Wars can (perhaps) be justified when waged as last-resort self-defense - can this one? There are plenty of honorable arguments both ways; at some point, a moral person has to choose. I believe that the Irag War is a moral, as well as a practical, failure for our nation.
2 - ss
I wouldn't argue that we're out to change rentier economies in the Middle East.
I would also agree we would like to see an increase in personal liberties there.
And while these both can laudable goals in themselves (they can also be subverted by corruption, tradition, and selfish interest, on our part and on the part of local leaders), will this transformation have an effect on global terrorism?
I would have to ask the following questions:
1) Given that the 7/7 London bombings were carried out by terrorists raised within a free market democracy, will this transformation actually do anything to stem the bin Laden's appeal?
2) Could there be young men in the Muslim world, and everywhere else for that matter, who simply see participating in a war as a way to gain
respect within their own local communities?
3) Could the militarily weak, economically beholden, and frequently publicly shamed governments of the Middle East hold no prospect for this goal of glory through struggle?
4) Could this be what bin Laden and has ilk are exploiting? Is it even reasonable to assume bin Laden and his kind ever drew new recruits from the pool of people angry over lack of personal liberty in their country?
5) Could our assumption that democracy and progress will solve every problem be as dogmantic and paradigm driven as fundamentalist religion? Could the voting booth be our mosque? Could freedom be our seventy virgins?
6) Will western progress, laudable as it is (at it's best), end the appeal of fundamentalist religion and militarism in the Middle East? Has it done so here, in America?
7) Will fundamentalism and fear of colonialism act as two rising and falling waves, creating the most new terrorists when they rise together?
8) Has the war in Iraq done anything to lower the crest of either wave, or seperate them in any way? Or has it instead intensified both waves and brought them together as never before?
3 - The Searcher
Quite honestly, I wonder if we aren't in more danger of imploding than being destroyed by outside forces.
4 - Dave Nalle
Excellent article. Nice to see that there are still some people who can step back and view the war with clarity.
Dave