Majority Voice for War Questioned

Author: Colin Ashby Kuhlman

Anyone who read the Feb. 19 edition of The Middlebury Campus may have noticed an opinion piece by Amber Hillman '05. At the heart of this piece is Hillman's fierce desire to protect Americans, which, while commendable, seems to blind her to the dangers, both physical and moral, of an attack on Iraq.
Hillman begins by pointing out that protesters of the impending war against Iraq, while vocal, do not constitute a majority, nor does their outspoken stance against war make them right.
However, I would point out that being in the majority, vocal or not, does not necessarily constitute correctness.
As Paul Krugman noted in the Feb. 18 edition of The New York Times, "Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made."
If this is truly the majority's justification for war, then perhaps it is time for that silent majority to rethink its rationale.
Hillman proceeds to denounce those Americans who "would rather leave our brave and patriotic brothers and sisters ... unarmed and vulnerable in the face of danger, simply to save the lives of people who are merely pawns in the hands of a cruel and menacing dictator."
I agree that Saddam Hussein is a "cruel and menacing dictator." But he is also a dictator, who, as C.I.A. Director George Tenet reported to Congress on Oct. 8, 2002, is unlikely to use his weapons of mass destruction unless provoked by a U. S. attack.
If our goal in toppling Saddam is to ensure the safety of American citizens, then it seems supremely logical to consider military action only as a last resort, not as a necessity.
By averting a war, it might not be merely the lives of those "pawns" that are saved, but also the lives of "millions of innocent Americans."
Perhaps Hillman is ashamed of me for my reluctance to throw away any lives, American or Iraqi.
But avoiding war would not merely save lives in the short-term; it would also be a step towards safeguarding the future of millions worldwide.
If this country ultimately invades Iraq, that invasion could quite easily necessitate a very bloody, very costly, very drawn-out American presence in Iraq, a presence which could reopen old wounds in the region while simultaneously inflicting fresh ones. If Hillman's goal is to protect Americans, then essentially planting the seeds for a new crop of anti-American zealots is certainly not the most sensible means to that end.
If America truly is the "greatest nation in this world," as Hillman contends, is it not therefore our responsibility to lead the world by our example? Should we not seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts? Should we not refuse to gamble with innocent lives, American or otherwise?
Though I have never "run to Washington, D.C., to wave anti-war signs and banners," I would like to answer Hillman's question of whether I would rather watch my friends, family and myself die because I "don't want to risk killing an innocent Iraqi," albeit with a question of my own.
I question what makes the life of that innocent Iraqi, who most likely also has friends and family, less valuable than the life of any of my equally innocent friends or relations? Human life is human life, and I shudder at the coolness with which Hillman asks us to trade Iraqi lives for American security.
It may seem unpatriotic of me to say, but I do not believe that an American life has any more intrinsic worth than any other life, be it the life of an Iraqi, a Korean, an Iranian, or any other citizen of this world.
And if we, as Americans, conduct foreign policy on the premise that lives are expendable as long as they are not American, then we dishonor the principles of liberty and justice that we, as Americans, hold so dear. Perhaps my views are shared by only a minority of Americans, Hillman, but that does not make them wrong.