The anti-war crowd on campus has been busy. In their spirited attempt to find as many facts, figures and statistics to convince other students and faculty members of the dangers of President Bush's policy on Iraq, certain individuals have resorted to more extreme and utterly callous methods.
Late last term several students bearing hand-made signs estimating the number of casualties caused by a hypothetical war against Iraq held a demonstration in Food Court. While I have enjoyed and profited from the many debates on this campus (I consider myself one of the few remaining individuals on this campus who still favors genuine open debate) this demonstration angered me. In a desperate attempt to gain political legitimacy, students in the anti-war crowd in general and specifically those I saw in Food Court have used and continue to use the suffering of the Iraqi people to forward their own political aims and then shed these very same people aside.
Some of the signs worn by the demonstrators estimated the number of Iraqi people that would be killed in a military campaign as well as the "post-war" period. These figures were used as evidence to strengthen their argument, which apparently worked -- the combined numbers reached to the hundreds of thousands. While I don't dispute these claims, one must put these numbers into context -- something the anti-war protesters have failed to do thus far.
For one, over a million -- not hundreds of thousands -- of civilians have already died because of the sanctions placed on Iraq over the last decade; the current estimate is around 1.5 million. These sanctions were placed on Iraq by the U.N. Security Council with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power. The most recent actions by the U.S. (and the United Nations, mind you) concerning Iraq are only being considered because after ten years the sanctions haven't worked -- Saddam is still in power, enjoying his palatial life while his people starve.
According to the sheet I was handed by the demonstrators in Food Court, the "containment policy has worked...[The U.S.] can continue to contain the dictator of a small, poor nation until he dies or overthrows." Excuse me, demonstrators, what happened to your bleeding hearts for the Iraqi people, who you pretend to be helping in the first place? They're still dying -- over 150,000 a year. If you go by what the demonstrators say then eventually Hussein will die (his country is so ravaged he will never be overthrown internally at this point). The question of when is not important to us Americans, but it means either life or death for millions of Iraqi citizens. Containment has not worked; Hussein is in still in power, and innocent people are still dying.
Another way in which the anti-war demonstrators ignore the reality of the current situation in Iraq is their refusal to acknowledge Hussein as a ruthless, murderous dictator. So quickly we attack President Bush for his dramatic adjectives in describing Hussein, but a review of the evidence fully justifies such elaborate description. Take for example Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds -- bringing not just death, but a horribly painful death upon thousands of his own people. Or his policy of giving political dissidents a choice of either being executed or shooting their own brother, father, or best friend. Or women prisoners being routinely raped. I could go on.
Ultimately, if those opposed to war want to attack U.S. foreign policy and its motivations, then I admit there is considerable evidence to support their cause. If, however, those opposed to war want to use the suffering of Iraqi people as political capital, they should either become more informed of reality, or question the ethics of coldly using innocent people for their own political gains.
