Editor's note: This is the first in a set of articles that will examine perspectives on the Iraq conflict of specific segments of the Dartmouth community.
After two terms of debate, teach-ins, rallies and protests by Dartmouth students, the Bush administration issued its final ultimatum and began its military campaign in Iraq while Hanover was vacant and students were at home sleeping off their Winter term exhaustion.
For members of Dartmouth's political organizations, reactions to the war were mixed. Whether groups were pleased or disappointed, none were very surprised by the administration's decision to go to war.
"I was disappointed, but I can't say I wasn't expecting it," said Clint Hendler '05, a member of Why War, a peace activism organization.
Representatives from both the Young Democrats and the College Republicans said that the war was not really a party-line issues and that their groups had both pro- and anti-war members.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans also said that the issue had probably not been discussed as much within their organizations as in groups such as the College Greens and Why War because neither one of their parties had a black-and-white stance on the war.
"There is never a party-line with issues like this," said Vikash Reddy '05, president of the Young Democrats.
Josh Marcuse '04 of the Young Democrats said that while he personally supported the Bush administration's decision to go to war, the issue had been as divisive among the Young Democrats as among the Democratic Party itself.
Marcuse added that some Democrats were caught in an uncomfortable position of supporting military action in Iraq, but disapproving of President Bush's methods of diplomacy.
"I support the policy, but I feel he did a very bad job of executing it," said Marcuse of Bush's war policy.
William Quirk '06 of the College Republicans felt that many people in his organization shared this sentiment. "There are some people in the club who think diplomacy could have been a little better."
Quirk emphasized however that there was "a lot of diversity" in the reactions of his fellow Republicans, and that the issue of war is "not really a party thing. It is more of a personal issue."
"I think generally the Republicans in the club are hawkish. They aren't war-mongers, they just feel that Saddam is a threat," said Quirk.
Quirk also said that the Libertarian faction of the College Republicans was deeply concerned by what they felt were infringements on civil liberties as a result of the government's recent Patriot Act.
Despite the fact that protests were not able to prevent President Bush's plans for an invasion of Iraq, many of the Why War campus activists were pleased with their accomplishments nonetheless.
Most Why War members said that they were pleased with the way they had been able to raise campus awareness of peace issues.
"The entire anti-war movement, nationally and internationally, has grown and will continue to grow. It is impossible to ignore," said Kate Schuerman '05 of the Dartmouth College Greens and the Why War organization.
Hendler felt that Why War was overturning the national stereotype of Dartmouth as a bastion of conservatism. The "activist core at Dartmouth expanded enormously," said Hendler.
Despite these accomplishments, Hendler said that the mood of the Why War organization was -- not surprisingly -- depressed.
In addition to vigils and working to rebuild Iraq, Alex Kirigin '06, also a member of Why War, said, "For future peace activism we are going to need to turn our eyes to North Korea and Iran."
