Oh, more so. Much more so.Perhaps the subject says it all; in case is doesn't... With almost any war or threat of war, some will brand anti-war protestors as traitors, etc. Or perhaps as jackasses. Over the last few days, I've found myself seriously wondering what it means when there are so many such complaints against anti-war protestors being aired today. Do the critics of anti-war protestors really want to live in a country where there is not a strong voice for peace?
Isn't going to war such an sigificant action that it deserves criticism as
much as any other?
I found myself listing the reasons pro and con for going to war. On the pro side: 1) We get rid a nasty man with the potential, if left unchecked, to inflict great harm on us via terrorism. 2) We free a country and its long suffering people from aforementioned despot. 3) The possibility that some sort of reverse domino effect catapults the rest of the Arab world into the 21st century.A nation that enters war with little or no protest would be a very frightening thing, I think. And does that ever really happen unless those who would advocate for peace are afraid to speak up?
This is one more domain in which I see a very bothersome trend -- people in disagreement whose rhetoric implies that their goal is to silence or otherwise get rid of those who disagree. (Of course, some of the more radical voices don't just imply it, they say it out loud.) When I discuss this, people tend to quickly blame the media for treating all issues this way, a trend toward cynicism that I lamented in "The Transparent Society." So this concern is not new for me. But poised on the brink of war, it comes home even more, as I see and hear what seems to be a large group of people who have no respect for peace advocacy.
I'm not sure if war on Iraq is right or wrong. I am quite sure that if it is the right thing to do (or perhaps I should say the "best" thing), that wouldn't make disrespect for peace advocates right. I want to live in a country and community where that voice remains strong, right alongside the voices of those who are guarding our borders and security.
On the con side 1) War casualties including ours and our allies, Iraqi civilians and Iraqi military. 2) Infrastructure destroyed adding to the suffering of the Iraqi people and contributing to the casualty list. 3) An increase in the disaffection with the US and involved allies not only in other Arab countries, but everywhere in the world, that will quite likely increase the number of individuals participating in terrorist acts against us and those willing to fund them. 4) Said disaffection leading to a decrease in the willingness of other countries to aid our fight against terrorism. 5) Rifts with friends and allies that could have negative effects on commerce 5) The cost of rebuilding a country ravaged by years of inattention by its despotic leader and further torn apart by two wars. 6) The political problems inherent in nation building 7) Setting the questionable precedent of a preemptive war on a sovereign nation.
The problem I have with Pro #1 - supposedly the most compelling reason in this post 911 world is that between inspectors and no fly zones and surrounding troops, and dispute BushCo's histrionics, I just don't believe Sadaam is very much of a threat. The problem I have with Pro #2 is that (for instance) for a hell of a lot less money and without starting a war we can save many more people by making AIDS drugs available to afflicted African nations. The problem I have with #3 is that I think that it is just as likely to backfire as it is to work.
I don't have any problems with war casualties not occurring or infrastructure not being destroyed or our relationships with other countries not being eroded or not encouraging terrorism, or not having to pay for Iraq's reconstruction or becoming (more) entangled in Middle East politics or setting troubling new precedent.
In short, I think we can work it out without a war.
Doug
GCU QED
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
