Protest amidst war must not be stifled

Now that the invasion of Iraq is in full swing, are those of us who advocated alternatives morally obligated to withhold our reservations? The Fox Network’s Bill O’Reilly – and some readers of this paper – suggest that any who criticize the war now are unpatriotic. Criticism purportedly undermines the efforts and morale of the young men and women risking their lives on behalf of our freedoms.

These self-designated patriots forget, however, that many now honored as great Americans regarded dissent in wartime as especially vital. In an op-ed last month in The Chicago Tribune, Stanley Kutler reminds us that as a young congressman, Abraham Lincoln voted to censure President James Polk during the Mexican War for an invasion based “from beginning to end on the sheerest deception.” Lincoln demanded of the president that he “answer fully, fairly and candidly. Let him answer with facts and not with arguments.” Today there are at least as many compelling reasons for dissenters not to withhold their qualms and criticisms.

I hope that I have been wrong in my previous columns on Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. invasion will remove Saddam with minimal loss of U.S. and Iraqi lives. With every passing day, however, that prospect seems less likely. In any case, advocates of war who based their position on relatively benign scenarios of surgical strikes or enemy defections cannot now try to foreclose efforts to assess the course of war against such promises.

President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have repeatedly assured us that civilian casualties will be kept to a minimum. That stipulation goes to the heart not only of the morality of this war but its long-term effects. Major damage to Iraq and its population will reduce the likelihood that a peaceful and democratic Iraq can emerge from the conflict, exacerbate the refugee problems throughout the Middle East, and encourage further anti-U.S. sentiments. The recent Iraqi suicide bomber may presage not only a longer military campaign but also continuing violence once Iraq has been conquered.

Reassurances by the president and the prime minister are meaningless without independent efforts to expose and assess casualties. The Pentagon has neither the will nor the means to accumulate and disseminate such data. Some anti-war activists can have their own axes to grind, but their appeal and impact will be a function of just how honestly they strive to resist the propaganda of both sides. In an era where major media are increasingly the PR arm of the U.S. military, no citizen need fear that the Pentagon’s side will not get ample airing.

If the war goes less well than planned, continued efforts to limit its duration and scope and to fashion alternatives serve the interests of our soldiers. I find it curious that so many who proclaim support for U.S. troops both work to prolong or even intensify the wars in which they die and then desert them on their return. “Support our troops” from the mouths of many conservatives amounts to little more than a parade and a few medals at the conclusion of war. Those ceremonies are then followed by continuing efforts to deny veterans the care needed for the lifelong physical and psychological injuries they sustained in our service. From Agent Orange to the uranium-enriched shells of the first Gulf War, Pentagon efforts to hide and deny veterans’ service-related health problems are a national disgrace. The anti-war left has done more to expose and address that shame than many of today’s self-proclaimed patriots.

Once the war is over, war critics have a second important job. TV viewers will doubtless be treated to images of Iraqis grateful for the U.S. presence and to stories of Saddam’s brutality. These will be cited as proof of the beneficence of U.S. intervention. But most opponents of Bush’s war harbor no illusions as to Saddam’s character. Our quarrel has been with the human costs of this intervention and the motives and long-term goals of the liberators. If this war – against increasing odds – proves to be swift and relatively painless, the U.S. government must still be held to its commitment. It must enable a democratic Iraq in which all ethnic groups and political persuasions have an effective voice. In addition, Iraq’s infrastructure has already been seriously damaged by the current bombing campaign and by a decade of sanctions. It badly needs U.S. assistance, but the U.S. performance in Afghanistan is hardly reassuring on this score.

Finally, if Iraq is supposed to be the linchpin for broader changes in the Middle East, the administration must be pushed harder on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian war. As long as the illegal Israeli occupation and the Palestinian terrorism feed and re-enforce each other, enduring regional peace is impossible. Without a vigorous protest movement, war is likely to take many more U.S. and Iraqi casualties even as it exacerbates regional and international tensions.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.