Talk of war and peace on so-called prestigious university campuses is sometimes fruitful, but often gives the false impression that certain extreme views are intellectual and morally superior. Such is the case with the current wave of peaceniks and pacifists whose attention far exceeds that merited by their arguments. I will use the Feb. 1 Wespeak by Ashley Casale to illustrate the clear and obvious shortcomings of pacifism as a general policy, and then discuss why an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq is undesirable in the highest degree, and what benefits have already come from the Anglo-American efforts in that region. Ashley, while I greatly respect that you have taken action to support your convictions, I will criticize your views without resorting to any ad hominem arguments, which I’m sure we both agree is both counterproductive and childish.
The central tenet of pacifism is that violence, even in self-defense, is unjustifiable and must be resisted. In fact, pacifism is nothing more than allowing, even tacitly encouraging, thugs and gangsters to wreak uncontested havoc. A room full of pacifists could be wiped out by one man carrying a knife who wishes to do harm. In this view, it seems to me, pacifism is not only deranged but also highly immoral.
Furthermore, I find statements such as, “We can’t end violence with violence,” remarkably naïve and visceral. For instance, consider the following moral and strategic advances made as a direct consequence of war that would not have occurred had the so-called anti-war movement been listened to: Saddam Hussein would be the owner and occupier of Kuwait (which would be known as the 19th province of Iraq), the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic would have made Bosnia part of the greater Serbia and Kosovo would have been ethnically cleansed.
As for Mesopotamia, I believe that the consequences of a quick withdrawal would be catastrophic (and just so there are no semantic ambiguities, that means far worse than the current situation). We would have to take responsibility for the immediate escalation in death that would undoubtedly occur. Iraq would essentially be surrendered to the nearest militia man; most likely invaded by neighboring sectarian forces, such as the Iranian theocracy and Saudi Arabia, and would fractionate among rival groups, and not just the general groups of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. The many gains by the sovereign Kurds, the largest minority in the world without a nation-state, would be lost.
There have been many successes of this current war, although they are not frequently highlighted. Consider the following: Talibanism and Baathism have been overthrown, the exposure of the A.Q. Khan network of illegal nuclear trafficking between Iran, North Korea and Libya, the ability to certify Iraq as disarmed rather than accept the word of a fascist autocrat, and the tremendous gains made by the Kurds. As a further example of the effectiveness of military power, consider that Libya’s Gaddafi handed over his WMDs to Bush and Blair only after we overthrew Saddam, and that these weapons are now in Tennessee (where they belong).
I personally believe that America’s war with Iraq began on Aug. 2, 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait in an attempt to annex it. We should have overthrown Saddam and his crime family then. Since the Gulf War, we have constantly been in conflict with Saddam. We instituted “no-fly zones” (which, by the way, were unilaterally imposed), and our planes were consistently fired at ever since. Iraq was in our future whether we liked it or not, and it was just a matter of time before Saddam did something that would give us an excuse to overthrow him. I think it was the right thing for Bush and Blair to make the first move, rather than wait for Saddam to provoke action. We were complicit in keeping Saddam in power, and our economic sanctions helped starve Iraqis. We had an obligation and a promise to fulfill to these people, and for these collective reasons I consider the effort in Iraq extremely noble.
I realize that many students on campus disagree with me, and that some ardently do. I have respect for the students of Students for Ending the War in Iraq (SEWI), just not their opinion on this subject. Since we differ only in judgment, and not intention, I propose we set up a casual public discussion of the issue where we can exchange our diverse ideas and opinions in a friendly environment.
Leave a Reply