Opinion

Protesters persistant

Many remain opposed to Iraq war

By Paul Goodman

Posted on Oct. 05, 2006, at 12:00 a.m.

Given the flurry of editorials in strong support of professor Doug Allen’s actions last week, and the recent protests held on and off campus, I’d have to say that I think I learned two things about the anti-war movement: one, in their eyes, the Iraq war will never be justifiable, no matter how much evidence points to the contrary: and two, they have an interesting philosophy of what is ‘inaction.’

Regarding the war, anti-war advocates continue to state that no WMDs have been found, even after the Washington Times reported in June that Coalition troops have found over 500 Gulf-era chemical weapons since 2003, proving that Saddam violated UN resolutions. They have overlooked years of global intelligence from various countries that convinced many other world leaders that Saddam was developing or already in possession of WMDs, and the many documents recovered post-invasion that detail the existence of such development programs.

They say that the Iraq war has promoted more terrorism, despite a recent survey from the Program on International Policy Attitudes that shows over 82 percent of Iraqis have an unfavorable view of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. And some will even go as far as to ignore the mass graves of the thousands killed by Saddam’s regime and say that Iraq was better off under his control. Moving to stop or prevent mass murder is justifiable, but only in certain circumstances, and Iraq apparently isn’t one of them.

Second, Professor Allen’s idea that ‘inaction is an action’ is an interesting theory, but somewhat vague on what sort of positions constitute ‘inaction.’ Are those who feel differently about the Iraq war guilty of ‘inaction?’ If I feel that military action is a good way to fight against or prevent genocide, would I be taking a position or would it be considered inaction, because it’s not the way the protesters feel?

I’m not just talking about Iraq. There is a different, very real situation where innocent people are being killed. This situation is the ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan.

For two years now, many leaders from both sides have called for something more to be done for Darfur, putting pressure on the UN to intervene and stop the genocidal conflict from continuing any further. But the UN has yet to even call the events in Darfur genocide. Despite that, many other organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, believe otherwise.

For two years, no resolutions to mobilize UN forces have been enforced, and no pressure has been placed on the Sudanese government to allow peacekeepers to be deployed. With over 400,000 civilian deaths, and hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced by the conflict, humanitarian aid is only doing so much to help those affected and to stop the intensifying hostilities. The UN is hardly taking a firm position on the matter, and is committing what Professor Allen and his supporters currently define as inaction.

So, I have a few questions for those who attended the rally last Wednesday, to the PSA, or basically anyone who can give me an answer: Would any of you support military action if it was the best way to end genocide in countries like Darfur? If the Iraq war is unjust, then when would a war be just? Is there a time or place that a war would be justifiable?

I do not ask these questions in an attempt to ‘convert’ anyone into supporting the Iraq war, or to distract from it. If anything, I just think it’s time to put your money where your megaphones are, and think about what else defines inaction.

Paul Goodman is a third-year new media major.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 5th, 2006, 12:00 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.