One of the nice things about going to school here at Dartmouth is the secluded, woodsy surroundings. People come here to avoid the crowds and hassles of city life, instead enjoying a relaxing environment conducive to both studying and partying. Our remote location is part of what allows us to proudly call ourselves a college and not a university. But our location can have detrimental effects as well if it creates a degree of separation from what is happening in the world around us. Our age group in general tends to be poorly informed of and apathetic towards current events in national news. This attitude is dangerous for Dartmouth students, many of whom will one day be running America's corporations or helping to shape public policy.
Perhaps even more dangerous is the rise of intellectual pacifism on this campus and others. Unlike many whose pacifist philosophies stem mainly from their religious beliefs, intellectual pacifists are against war simply because they consider themselves smarter and better-informed than the masses who are calling for Osama bin Laden's head on a stick. They will dislike Bush no matter how great a leader he may turn out to be, and they oppose retaliation against any military action in the Middle East unless, of course, they themselves were affected personally by the terrorists.
One of the disconcerting things about the intellectual pacifism being preached here is that those who oppose our military action have no alternative options to offer. There was no chance we would have been able to negotiate reasonably with the Taliban. Because initial attempts to get the Taliban to turn Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization over to us through negotiations were unproductive, President Bush stated publicly that the negotiating period was over. No amount of evidence we could present would have caused the Taliban to admit that bin Laden was involved in the attacks, so there was no point hoping for some miracle compromise, and we should have expected this all along. Asking the Taliban to turn over bin Laden would have been analogous to trying to get the Nazis to turn over Hitler.
We're sending our forces in because it is the only way we will be able to bring to justice the people who have hurt us so deeply, and it won't stop with Afghanistan. There is good reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, and Iraq is the only country in the world (including Afghanistan) whose government has not expressed its sympathy for the victims. Even those who argue we can negotiate with the Taliban must admit that there is no chance we will be able to persuade Hussein to step down through negotiation.
In his speech to the nation yesterday, President Bush emphasized that our military targets will be limited to al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban. These attacks are being carried out at night; during the day, we will be flying planes over the country that will be dropping supplies and food for the Afghan people. Clearly we are not trying to take "an eye for an eye." There is every reason to believe we are going to great lengths and making great sacrifices to preserve every innocent life in the countries we infiltrate, just as we did in Iraq ten years ago.
Those who argue that it is not only the terrorists but we in America who are evil, that we should not risk the lives of innocent Afghani citizens in our quest to eliminate the terrorist network, should think long and hard about the following questions. Could you look into the eyes of the widowed wife of a fireman or the orphaned children who lost both parents in the attacks and tell them violence is never the answer? Could you explain to them that we need to understand what the terrorists were thinking when they flew three planes into our buildings and crashed a fourth? Lastly, could you tell them that finding the people who killed their loved ones is not worth the life of one Afghan civilian?
If not, you need to seriously reconsider your position and your entire line of thinking on the matter. This is the reason I believe we, especially on this campus, need to hold off on cries for nonviolence right now. Most people who protest our use of force probably do not know anyone who was directly affected by the tragedy. Most of them live at some comfortable distance from Washington, D.C. and New York City, meaning they watched the events on television but didn't have to see the mutilated Manhattan skyline in person.
One of the things that makes this country great is the fact that any of us can say whatever we think about any issue, including whether or not we should use the military to flush out and capture terrorists. But now we have men and women serving their country half a world away, and their success depends greatly on how much support we give them. If we choose to ignore the tremendous loss of American life and focus solely on the possibility that some innocent Afghanis might be killed, we can rationalize an anti-military protest. If, however, we choose to be counted among the Americans who love their country and the people who fight for it, we will find that supporting the armed forces and our Commander in Chief is far more important and rewarding than empty, self-serving intellectualism.
