Viola Calls for Reason in Response to Hillman

Author: Peter Viola

Amber Hillman's opinions piece "Hillman Calls for Patriotism" (The Middlebury Campus, Feb. 19, 2003) resorted to the lowest form of blind patriotic diatribe in supporting a war with Iraq.
Hillman espoused, with painful clarity, her perception of the United States as world peacekeeper, as well as a blatant and horrific disregard for the sanctity of human life.
In her article, Hillman poses a question to the reader: "For those of you who are quick to run to Washington, D.C. ... : Would you rather watch your friends, your family and yourself, die from the results of a grand-scale biological attack, simply because you didn't want to risk killing an innocent Iraqi?"
I will not "risk" killing anyone. No one with respect for human life would require death of another human being, no matter what the cause.
Nor would such a person juggle his or her own moral convictions in the hypothetical game of "risky" killing that Hillman would have us play through her plea.
Hillman's question is inherently flawed. It reduces our choices to either killing innocent Iraqis or to facing a "grand-scale biological attack," thereby avoiding any chance for diplomacy or inspections to prevent either from happening in the first place.
Had Hillman considered the facts, she would realize that the United States has still not presented any evidence that Iraq possesses the means to launch a warhead onto U.S. soil.
North Korea, on the other hand, does possess that capability -- so why is she not crying for North Korean blood?
Is she ignorant of the greater threat posed by North Korea, or does she have ulterior motives for attacking Iraq first?
Perhaps, like so many other "patriots" these days, she is simply spurred on by empty feelings of rage rather than by any well-thought-out reasoning.
I ask Hillman to reconsider her own question in a different light: if even one innocent Iraqi, let alone thousands, is killed in the coming war with Iraq, and as a result she and her loved ones may supposedly rest assured that they are safe forevermore from attack, would that justify that innocent Iraqi's death?
Hillman is essentially stating that if we must kill and maim people of another nation in order to ensure the safety of the people in our own, we should do it. I find that to be a disturbingly pathological notion.
"Protection" through killing leads only to escalation, not safety.
Especially in this case, the ends do not justify the means, for there will be no end to violent anti-American sentiment for a long time to come after we ruin the livelihoods of even a few thousand more Iraqi people.
Hillman also states, "There comes a time when a nation must take moves that, although they may result in the deaths of some innocent people, will prove necessary and just in the grand scheme of things." This heartless language only justifies mass murder.
When the United States does go to war with Iraq, thousands of innocent people will die, not just "some" innocent people.
Personally, I draw the line at the first victim, but if Hillman believes that she can choose when the number of corpses makes the killing wrong, she should at least avoid downplaying the catastrophic loss of life that the impending war will cause.
Most upsetting, however, is Hillman's use of the phrase "the grand scheme of things." Ascribing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people due to U.S. sanctions alone to an imaginary "grand scheme of things" is a criminal lapse in human caring on her part.
It is precisely that kind of bombastic language that Islamic fundamentalists use to justify suicide attacks as jihad. It is that kind of rhetoric which also causes widespread animosity toward the United States at home and abroad.
"Put America first," cries Hillman, "Let the greatest nation in the world ... defend itself from evil." I, for one, choose to put reason and compassion before such ignorant pride.

Peter Viola is a literary studies major from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.