In the national debate on the war in Iraq, there has been surprisingly little debate on, well, the war coming from the anti-war crowd. Not only is this not helping their own cause, it is also rather dangerous- as the lack of a real debate on the real issues implicitly assures conformity to the Administration's side of such issues.
Well, now we finally know this is a real war here in Iraq. Middle-class college students, aging rock stars and the Hollywood glitterati are dusting off the old protest signs and appearing in droves wherever a CNN camera is to be found. To be fair, of course, we're seeing the tired old rhetoric from the Administration and their pro-war throngs about how un-American these protesters are, and how dangerous they are to the cause of freedom across the globe.
The opposite, however, is actually true. Today's batch of protesters are a problem. If, indeed, this war is a mistake, it is the anti-war protesters that are actually most dangerous to their own cause.
- EXPOSING MY BIAS TOWARDS COMPLEXITY -
In the spirit of fair opinion journalism, I suppose I should disclose my stance on the war. Otherwise I assume many readers would first scan this article to find that information anyway, and all of the lofty and well thought out paragraphs before it would just go to waste. I must first warn you, however: my revelation will neither make you swell with the gratification of concurrence nor inspire you write angry letters laden with partisan talking points.
I'm neither.
Ok, that is not entirely accurate. At the time of this writing, I am about 52% for and 48% against, and slowly moving toward "against." See, I told you- not very stirring. Here's the trade-off, though- I am still angry about "the war," as it were. So keep reading anyway.
The current debate on the war itself, in America, has unfortunately become very near meaningless. While I won't excuse either side from this concern, I lay most of the blame on the anti-war protester crowd. This blame has nothing to do with the message itself. Protesters- being probably the most important voice on any issue in a democracy- you see, also hold most of the responsibility in steering the discussion on said issues. Without protesters we all just silently conform.
The anti-war movement- while certainly holding up its end of being loud and recognized- is ushering very little discussion on the substantial content of the matter at hand. I've certainly heard questions raised about the war. However, the mere existence of questions does not an intelligent dialogue- towards a real end- make.
Maybe I am alone in this, but I have been trying to base my feelings toward this war off of a little more than "let's go kick some enemy butt" versus "this war is a lie, and we need to stop killing our soldiers." Let's face it, while the wording is often a lot more winded, that is about the entirety of the debate right now.
Wars, however, are much more complex than that. Always. These complexities exist in the reasons for, the actual ground strategy within, and the final objectives of any war. And- as much as it may not serve the vitriol and consensus snowballing of either side- this war is no different.
- THE SIMPLETON EPIDEMIC -
The anti-war crowd likes to paint President Bush as a simpleton who's decisions are based off of a pure black-and-white worldview, ignorant of the true subtleties that exist in the issues he and his administration are confronting. While Bush is by no means close to a personal hero to me, I can't help but see an even simpler, even more detail-ignorant worldview being used as the backdrop to the anti-war movement. Let's take a look at the main issues of that side of the debate.
