Why the Debate Continues
Continuing anti-war sentiment now that the war has begun is not a case of sour grapes. The ideological opposition to the whole pro-war movement lives on because those of us on this side of the issue still feel the war is wrong even though it has started – perhaps even more so as it is no longer a debate about the [inevitable but] hypothetical. While more idealistic protestors might have had hope that the president would hear their cries and have a change of heart, I never felt that way. I would have been delighted if the rush to war was halted, but I accepted the war as an inevitability as far back as early last fall. Now that the war has begun, I have no illusions that Bush is going to change his mind and pull out of Iraq – even if I feel that would be the right thing to do.
I could spend hours every day on a street corner, shouting slogans and holding signs, but I know that this is ineffective. Such slogans and signs are terribly inefficient media through which to fully argue the complex case against the war. The anti-war protestors have noble intentions, but they simply lack the forum to achieve what they wish and, indeed, it is the opposite side that uses fiery, easy-to-digest rhetoric that enjoys the advantage in that particular arena.
The continuing debate also goes far beyond a we’re-right-and-you’re-wrong mentality. The difference between the pro-war and anti-war communities isn’t different perceptions of the same issue; rather the pro-war lobby’s case is built upon shaky ground, shaky perhaps being too generous a word. If there is a reason I am so compelled to be vocal in my opposition to the war, it is this: every justification used by pro-war enthusiasts either ignores a veritable ocean of information or bases itself upon information that is patently false. Maybe a marginally read web log is an imperfect medium for such a debate, but as it is the only soapbox I have to stand on, I’ll take it.
For every rhetorically charged speech about the basis for war, there was the obvious that the newest basis was only a replacement for a previous, less popular one. Indeed, the name of the mission is Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the Liberation Theory is just the latest in a long line of potential reasons to invade, including preemptive strikes for self-defense, the ongoing war on terrorism, justice for 9/11, regime change and disarmament. As someone opposed to the war, it has been disturbing to me that supporters of the President have been willing to accept whichever theory was most current, as if the chameleonic scramble to find something that sat well with the public never took place.
For every statement the Administration made in justification of the war, there was a body of truths ready to refute it. Bush & Co. were able to quickly disseminate the idea that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11 and that some or all of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. As is obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention, none of the hijackers were Iraqis and the theory that Hussein had anything to do with the planning, funding or execution of the attacks has been shot down time and time again. The Administration offers no proof about such a tie and answers no direct questions about it, yet it is perfectly willing to throw the suggestion out there under the radar. And, as is the case so often in political discourse, that it was repeated often enough made it the truth; polls as recent as this past March indicate that a majority of respondents believe that the hijackers were Iraqi and that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack.
What the administration doesn’t uphold is their burden of proof; it is good enough to toss out ridiculous theories with no factual support. Any dissent will be met with charges of anti-Americanism and insufficient patriotism.
So the war continues, regardless of the efforts of the protestors, of the diligent bloggers or even the overwhelming body of world governments opposed to the war. Contrary to what Ari Fleischer might think, the time for debate is NOT over. That is all we, as simple citizens, have the power to do. To silence that power is the final nail in the coffin of democracy. To say that what has been started cannot be stopped is only a means to achieve one’s goals in starting it sooner. Why a rush to war? Because an immoral, unpopular war long in the coming is destined to fail. Like Florida in the 2000 election, a rush to a conclusion was required for the conspiring parties to be victorious. Why bring up things in the past that are already done? Even ostensible liberals like Bill Maher concur with this line of thinking: bringing up the 2000 election is "so September 10th." But there is no statute of limitations on justice.
I can’t speak for the entire anti-war movement, but this is why I persist. My goal, lofty as it may be, is to help to inform those who are being misled unknowingly. Some who are pro-war are too stubborn and ignorant to even care about the whole story whether they have access to it or not, but many are simply accepting what their affable-looking President is telling them because it seems believable enough. It takes a lot of work to understand why one should doubt the President – one has to do a considerable amount of digging to see that the Afghanistan war is still not finished, or that the Afghan oil pipeline was a big priority and that companies connected to the administration are poised to profit during the aftermath of the Iraq war.
Getting the whole story, especially during wartime and under an Administration so unabashedly repulsed by the truth, is overwhelming. Having a full time job makes it very difficult to get to the root of things. It requires an exceptional amount of reading on a daily basis and a well developed mechanism of healthy skepticism. Sitting in front of CNN for hours at a time for war coverage is hopelessly inadequate. The major media in the United States were loath to offer too many different viewpoints before the war, and they are certainly not going to risk losing their embedded reporters now that it’s begun. With every minute criticism of the President’s policies (even domestic ones!) being all too successfully portrayed as anti-America and anti-troop, you almost can’t blame them for their spinelessness.
We’re not going to change the wold here. We are powerless to stop the war. We don’t have the strength to successfully call for the impeachment of the President, but the more we talk and the more we whisper into the ears of the people who have been lied to effectively, the more doubt we can cast on this immoral invasion. Like just about any wartime president in American history, George W. Bush has seen a staggering 20 point climb in his approval rating since the war began. A telling comparison would be that his 70-odd percentage approval rating is only about 15 points higher than the percentage of Americans who believe Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks. Support for the war is based on half-truths and flat-out lies, by forged "evidence" and clever sophistry. I can’t purport to know the whole truth, but I can certainly seek to share what I do know in the hopes that a well-informed public will correct the dangerous path our country has been set upon.
- Marcus-Marcus
11:00:59 AM 
|
|
