Work for Peace, not against War (2/17/07)
Anti-war activists throughout the United States have been demonstrating against the war in Iraq and have been asking people to sign petitions to send to members of Congress. I would know. I was among these people.
I still admire those who advocate for an end to the war in this way, but I no longer believe that it produces the results they want.
For one, demonstrations and petitions have never brought at end to any United States military action. Typically, wars like Viet Nam have ended when politicians have grown weary of fighting and have lost hope in achieving their goals.
Late in that war, the United States knew that it could not rid South Viet Nam of the Viet Cong who made the war so difficult to begin with. All President Nixon and Henry Kissinger could do at the end was exchange prisoners of war and account for those missing in action.
For another, the current President, George W. Bush, remains in control of the armed forces and can withdraw or add to these forces at will. So what if the House of Representatives passed a resolution opposing funding for over 20,000 new soldiers for Iraq. It was non-binding and has no effect officially.
Congress does have the power to force the President to withdraw forces after ninety days of deployment via the War Powers Act. But this thirty-five year old law has never been applied successfully to recall troops.
The anti-war activists won't like me saying this, but it is time to face reality. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the rest of the Administration do not care how many people attend big rallies around the nation. In fact, they do not even care about the number of casualties.
That activists wish to use their First Amendment rights to express their point of view is commendable, but that does not make their work constructive. Too often, their message of peace gets reduced to simple messages of protest. "No Blood for Oil," for example, misses other factors in Iraq, including a stubborn insurgency, divided factions of Iraqis and a glaring amount of collateral damage. We could go on and on about soldiers who return to the United States without limbs or who face other problems that will require extensive care. Bumper sticker phrases cannot address these real issues.
As with so many other wars, we made our biggest mistake by not debating the war thoroughly ahead of time. Activists accurately pointed out the questionable information that the Administration handed us about weapons of mass destruction and the supposed imminent threat posed by Iraq and other propaganda.
But this was the time to come out in favor of an idea instead of merely opposing one. The anti-war movement could have become a peace movement by creating a list of demands that our leaders must meet before intervening in Iraq. That list would look something like this:
Find who really attacked us on 9/11
If it was Bin Laden, focus on capturing him
If it was someone else, bring them to justice
Tell the public how Iraq could attack us - the burden of proof is on those who want war
This list of demands could be initiated by different peace activists by the Internet and shown to the public and revised to address going to war in general. Our representatives will not likely be swayed, but we will have found our voice and delivered the most effective message: the offering of standards for going to war. Bush may not care, but maybe the next President will.