Note: Professor Larry May’s response was not included in the last issue because it was received after the publication deadline. Here is his response to the previously asked question: Has the media been accurately and adequately covering the war in Iraq? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage?
As in recent war coverage, the current war in Iraq is being treated as if it is a major sports tournament. It was originally hoped that things would be different with more reporters given access to the details of day-to-day operations of the war, rather than having to rely on briefings by flag-waving US military leaders.
For the first time there are “embedded” reporters who have trained and lived with various American military units. Yet, it is common for these reporters to begin their reports by saying, “We have just been engaged in assaults against members of Iraq’s army” or words to that effect. Such language betrays the major problem with the war reportage: “embedded” reporters have little or no objectivity. “Embedded” reporters are more properly “indebted” reporters, cheerleaders who allow for the realities of war to be once again hidden in the rush of patriotism.
Is there value in continuing to protest the war with Iraq? Why or why not?
Larry May:
The war in Iraq is illegal and also immoral. The question should be, “Is there a value in continuing the war?” To that question I have a clear answer-and the answer is “no.” The protest movement has continued to point out the illegality and immorality of the war. Unless things change and make the war now legal and moral, why should the protests against the war stop? The value of the protests is clear: the protests continue to call attention to the illegality and immorality of what the Bush administration is doing. By doing so, the war protests act in a time-honored way to continue to stimulate the conscience of the nation. In addition, the war protests point out to the rest of the world that not all Americans disregard legality and morality. In this way, continuing war protests are appropriate and effective despite the fact that the Bush administration claims to ignore them.
Victor LeVine:
I suppose those who feel most strongly that their voices should be heard will continue to protest. I should point out that thus far the public protests have been relatively peaceful, and most governments (except those of the coalition) are probably pleased that the demonstrations target America, not them. It is also very probable that most governments carefully prepared for the protests and may have even helped to organize them as a good way to let off popular steam. What those protests can accomplish is another issue. The UN, the EU, and many countries opposed to war are mobilizing to provide humanitarian relief and plan for the after-Saddam Iraq. Maybe that’s a more productive way now of showing concern than carrying a placard.
Paul Rothstein:
Protests that remind our leaders that we are attentive, that we are watching and evaluating what they do and judging them, are always valuable. The question seems to be motivated by the fact that we have the war despite the protests, but you do not have to look at “the war” or “the protests” so narrowly. The war is not just about defeating Saddam Hussein, it is also about rebuilding Iraq and shaping American doctrine for engaging the rest of the world. Hanging banners over highways is not going to stop the war, and in the short run politicians pay more attention to opinion polls than protests. The organizations carrying out the protests will become part of the infrastructure of vigilance (maybe only an economist would find that catchy). I support the fight now that it is under way. I see a big need for that infrastructure down the road.