Since I have several points to make, I will skip most of the pleasantries of a standard introduction and dive right in.
First, in reaction to recent peace protests, the current administration has expressed that although Americans have the right to protest (in fact, isn’t that one of the freedoms we are fighting for?), those who prefer peace to war are providing de facto support for a tyrannical dictator. While I cannot speak for every single person who opposes war, I have yet to hear a single person declare that Saddam Hussein is a “nice guy.” He is a despot in every sense of the word. He has, over the course of several decades now, sanctioned horrible acts of brutality and desecration onto his own people, as well as people in other countries. I won’t dispute that and I doubt that many peace protesters would either. What is lost in the mischaracterization of those who desire peace is that war in Iraq will (if we have any ability to predict Saddam’s strategies) cause immense civilian casualties in urban combat and probably push Saddam into using his weapons (conventional or otherwise) on not only American soldiers, but on his nearest neighbors (read: Israel). Is it accurate to argue that war will ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, especially if they are used as human shields? Will fighting them in the streets make the United States any more popular in the Middle East?
Second, what is so wrong with allowing United Nations inspectors enough time to do their job? The Bush administration constantly uses the fact that Iraq is the size of California to point out that Saddam could be hiding weapons anywhere. Yet, this same administration (which fought to get U.N. inspectors into Iraq in the first place) only allows 80 inspectors at a time (fewer than after the Gulf War) and has only given them a few months to deliver a “final report.” Have they found some evidence of Iraqi deception? Perhaps. But there has been no “smoking gun” as there was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Aren’t the lives of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers worth waiting to find that smoking gun? People are getting upset about our allies abandoning us in the U.N., but all they are asking for is hard evidence of an active global threat before starting what they know will be a long process of nation-destruction and nation-rebuilding. A decade has passed since the Gulf War. Prior to the war, we weren’t concerned about Saddam’s actions so long as he was helping us fight the Iranians. The root question then is why war with Iraq is absolutely necessary right now. Isn’t it better to take our time, gather the evidence, present the strongest case possible to the U.N. and then receive its blessing? How can we justify the rapid momentum to war with a nation that has done nothing but follow policies it has maintained for a decade, when North Korea is practically beating down our door with nuclear weapons and merits only passing, diplomatic interest?
Third, what is the true motivation behind this war? Is it because we truly want to free the Iraqi people? To secure our interests against a threat that seems to come and go as politics change? Or because it will give us a tangible victory on the “War on Terror?” The tone of the Bush administration (and hawks in general) is that people who prefer peace are simply ignorant, are na‹ve, or lack the ability to discern good from evil. But in so suggesting Bush is actively ignoring the opinions of millions who protest the war on a weekly basis. How many pro-war protests have you seen? Or solidarity movements in favor of the war? In the end, I find it highly ironic that those of us who prefer peace to bloodshed have to provide evidence to justify our existence. We are the ones engaging in critical thinking, and not just swallowing what is being fed to us. While I cannot dive into the evidence here, are the millions of people (many of them veterans) who protest for peace on a semi-monthly basis really just stupid and ignorant? Or is there more going on than we hear on the nightly news? Think deeper before condemning those who prefer peace to war and oppose foreign policies that come out the end of a gun.