I applaud Reverend Crocker's courage in having stated moral objections to the Iraq war even back when such an anti-war position was unpopular. However, since he decided to sideline these moral objections in favor of a string of unsupportable political ones in his letter (The Dartmouth, May 18), I feel the need to show that not all of us war protestors turn a blind eye to political realities in hopes of sheltering our "fragile" moral arguments against the war. I hope that acknowledging the errors in Reverend Crocker's political reproof will show all that one can be morally opposed to the war while simultaneously recognizing it for the astounding victory that it has been.
First, Reverend Crocker falsely claims that no weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered in Iraq (WMD is a widely used definition that refers to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons). Many of us anti-war people recognize that this is inaccurate. Two American soldiers are still seriously ill because an artillery shell full of sarin gas exploded yesterday before they could detonate it. This comes in addition to mustard gas that was already discovered on May 2. We reasonable war protestors realize that al Sadr's gangs and similar insurgents could not have conjured such weapons up ex nihilo; they had to exist as an undeclared part of Saddam's arsenal before they could be used. That's just basic physics. Or even basic metaphysics, in which Reverend Crocker is presumably better versed.
Second, it seems that Reverend Crocker is rusty on his military history, decrying as he does the high number of lives lost in the conflict. Many of us morally opposed to the war paid more attention in history class, though, and acknowledge that the Iraq war was one of the most brilliant military campaigns the world has seen since at least the time of Pizarro. More American troops were killed every two days during World War II than have been killed in 14 months in Iraq. Indeed, the campaign has been so virtually bloodless by almost any standard that the soldiers have actually been safer in Iraq than in many an American metropolis; fewer American soldiers were killed in all of Iraq last year than American civilians who were murdered in Chicago (599), New York (596) and Los Angeles (499).
Third, the College Chaplain is incorrect in claiming that Saddam's Iraq did not support international terrorism. Many conscientious objectors remember how Saddam Hussein very publicly paid some $15 million to families of Palestinian suicide bombers and Palestinians wounded in clashes with Israeli troops before being deposed. We recognize that al Qaida is not the only terrorist organization plaguing the world; those whom Saddam abetted in slaughtering Israel's Jewish civilians are terrorists just as much as those who piloted planes into the World Trade Center are.
Lastly, Reverend Crocker is somehow not familiar with the Bush administration's exit strategy for the war. Many of us anti-Iraq war types see the writing on the drafting table though. We see the undreamt of strides towards participatory democracy that the Iraqi Governing Council is making. We see that the country is on track to accomplish its goal of an election with universal suffrage by next year -- something that it took our own country 188 years to do domestically. We see how the infrastructure that Saddam let deteriorate over two decades of megalomaniacal rule is being modernized and brought up to snuff to compete in a world economy. In short, we see that Bush, his delegates in Iraq, and the Iraqi people have a very concrete and reachable vision for the future.
So, yes, many of us who opposed the war see what a stunning and relatively bloodless victory it has been. Sensationalist, agenda-driven news programs have not made us oblivious to that fact. Yes, we see that the governing coalition is setting into place a very stable foundation for democracy and equality. Pundit "chicken littles" have not made us think that the sky is falling in on the Governing Council. But, yes, we still object to one of the most successful wars in history because it violated natural law.
Given the acumen needed to explain how we can take such juxtaposed positions on the Iraq issue, I hope that Reverend Crocker will place his vast knowledge of philosophy and theology behind this task. However, I also hope that he will refrain from peppering very sustainable moral objections with political arguments. They don't shore up the former; they make it in need of serious sandbagging.
