Where’s the Outrage over Iraq?

Like many Americans, I have mixed feelings over the prospect of war with Iraq. I myself am neither for it nor against it--but both possibilities (war or its absence) leave me uncomfortable. On one hand, war is not something to be made lightly; and if we proceed capriciously, we could end up with another Vietnam. And yet, there's something about letting a dictatorial regime continue on in peace that is all too reminiscent of the pre-WWII appeasement of Hitler. The situation raises inevitable questions: do we want to wait for Iraq to drop the bomb? Or further assist terrorists? Or stockpile and hide more weapons of mass destruction?

I believe there are reasonable people on both sides of this debate--and have personally encountered several of them. But there is one thing I find on occasion amongst the anti-war protesters that absolutely pisses me off. There's no one word for it, but it can best be described as a naïve ignorance of the situation in Iraq paired with utter anti-American contempt.

It takes many forms. It's in the anti-war protest sign that declares this war to be over oil, not treaty violations or chemical weapons. It's in the attitude of many European states that condemn the US's actions outright, all while hiding behind their sanctimonious rhetoric of concern for human rights. It's in our last issue's article (by Cris Sullivan), which tries through thin apologetics to come off as balanced rather than biased in its condemnation of the Bush Administration. It's in the advertisement featuring Susan Sarandon (aired prior to January 28th's State of the Union speech) that argues against war supposedly for the sake of Iraq's women and children. It's all over the damn place, in every form, that voice whispering how dare they, those arrogant Americans…going to war to kill innocents all in their thirst for oil…bullying Saddam Hussein just because they can…

But where's the outrage over Iraq?

When will the protestors question the motives of a brutal dictator, at least as much as they question those of a democratically-elected one? When will those human-rights loving Europeans (especially the French) get worked up over the campaign of genocide that is going on in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein regularly tests out his chemical agents on the Kurds? And when will writer Cris Sullivan apply that notion of "finding ways of oppressing and subverting our opponents" to a country where political prisoners are regularly thrown in jail? And lastly, when will the Pollyanna Sarandons of the world realize that those innocent women and children could just as easily be killed at the whim of Saddam Hussein if he remains in power?

They won't.

Instead, they will continue to accuse the Bush Administration of stupidity and immorality for daring to consider such an "imperialistic" war. Yet their black-and-white analysis of the situation is not merely harmless naivete?-rather, it is just as dangerous as a mindless drive to war. One of the realities rarely grasped by the fringes of the pro-peace movement is that peace is not merely the absence of war. Their attitude of appeasement ("Let's give them another chance," "War must be avoided at all costs," etc.) and isolationism ("They haven't attacked us yet, so why should we interfere?") has been proven deadly?-and ultimately more anti-peace than an affirmation of war--in countless historical examples.

Most prominent of these involves the attitude of the British government towards Nazi Germany in the 1930's. The official position presented by then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was one of nonintervention, stemming from Chamberlain's sympathetic view of Germany due to the effects of the Versailles Treaty. The intentions of the British government can be summed up in Chamberlain's words upon his return from negotiations with Adolf Hitler: "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time..." In order to avoid war, Great Britain allowed Hitler's regime to remain in control despite its undemocratic stance and its policy of invading other countries. But as can be expected, the UK's appeasement policy simply opened the door for bolder violations of this nature. What if Great Britain had acted sooner? Would WWII have been less bloody? Would the Holocaust (which was actually started in the 1940's) have been so deadly?

Likewise, the situation in Afghanistan had many worried long before the Bush Administration's actions in the War on Terrorism. For years, I saw news stories about the oppressive Taliban regime and its illegitimate rise to power (something about hanging the country's former leaders). These programs detailed the restrictions on human rights imposed by the regime's brutal interpretation of the Shari'ah (Muslim law). They also depicted Afghan women in their burqas, and mentioned the Taliban's requirement that religious minorities must publicly identify themselves through symbols worn on clothing. In addition, al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were already recognized by the US government for their role in previous (though less publicized) attacks. But no one did anything, not for the sake of the Afghan people nor for the stability and protection of this country. Human-rights violations were ignored and potential threats were miscalculated, not for lack of knowledge but because of the public's blind demand for appeasement.

Is Iraq a threat to the United States? Only time will tell. But in the mean time, there must be an intelligent conversation over the possibility of war with Iraq. We must weigh the possible consequences of military action and inaction, respectively. And we must recognize that diplomacy and economic sanctions may yet provide a solution. But what we do not need are more idiots waving banners, or the trite rehashing of the same simplistic condemnations. Because if anything is clear about the mess in Iraq, it is this: it cannot be reduced to an anti-American slogan.