Opinion

Anti-war view is logically flawed

As terrible as war is, sometimes there's no alternative

By Paul Goodman

Posted on April 03, 2006, at 12:00 a.m.

With the Iraqi war turning three, once again the anti-war movement is back on the front pages and on the streets, re-protesting what they’ve said dozens of times before. Personally, I’m all for expressing one’s opinion about our country’s foreign policy, but I think it’s time to bring to light some of the grim realities of the world in relation to the anti-war movement’s messages and hope that some logic and reason, something I find lacking in their statements, is finally brought into consideration.

Let’s start off with a common enough desire of many current anti-war organizations: the complete and total pull-out and disbanding of all American forces from Iraq and other parts of the planet. It’s argued that if this were to occur and an isolationist stance is adopted in our foreign policy, the world would actually become a much safer place and people would stop fighting, and that it would help the general promotion of order and stability. It may seem like a decent enough idea on paper. But if, tomorrow, America was to pull all of its armed forces out of Iraq and other parts of the world, and then disarm the military to the bare amount needed to help maintain the country, does anyone here honestly think the rest of the world would follow suit? That Britain, France, Russia and China would drastically downsize their militaries as well? That Iran and North Korea would cease trying to become nuclear powered dictatorships? That the Israelis and the Palestinians would stop fighting each other and get along?

The answer is an obvious ‘No,’ and for many reasons. First, anyone who’s taken a basic anthropology course will tell you that people from different cultures and parts of the world think differently. And sadly, not all the countries are on the same page regarding world peace. What MPAC may think is the proper way for everyone to get along may not be the way that other people halfway across the globe in Europe or Asia or the Middle East think is the proper way to get along- in fact it may even be quite the opposite.

If you believe that widespread peace and friendship would result if all the countries of the world to disarm, then you need to get all of them to disarm at the same time. It’s naive to think that a ‘follow by example’ approach would be the only way of achieving world peace. And when you achieve that miracle of simultaneous disarmament, you need to have a way to keep things that way. Talk and blind trust alone will not stop any country from suddenly rebuilding their armies from scratch. Negotiation and good intentions didn’t stop Hitler from charging across Europe over half a century ago and it certainly hasn’t stopped the genocide in Sudan today. It’s perfectly acceptable for anyone or any organization to want to promote peace and stability, and I am hardly trying to say that war is any better a method in achieving world peace or stability. It should be understood that things are much more complicated than many people would like them to be, and that you cannot take care of every problem using the exact same solution every time.

Paul Goodman is a sophomore new media major.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 12:00 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.