To the Editor:
Fifteen months ago, many of us in the Dartmouth community raised our voices to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
We raised objections about the certainty that there were weapons of mass destruction and asked for more time for international inspections; we predicted a long and continuing struggle that would cost many lives, both American and Iraqi; we deplored the Bush administration's brash unilateralism and disregard of world opinion.
We argued that an invasion would not decrease terrorism but inflame it.
We pointed out that Iraq had not been a source of international terrorism.
We argued that such an invasion was a violation of international law that would severely compromise our nation's moral standing.
Our voices did not prevail, but at least we raised them. Despite being called unpatriotic, naive bleeding hearts, we raised our voices.
How ironic it is now that, when all our fears have proven true, so many of us are silent.
Our moral authority for the war, touted by the Bush administration as almost divine, has been severely diminished by our own actions -- actions that are probably not scattered and isolated, but actions that almost inevitably occur when power goes unchecked. Such was the case, we are told, in Saddam's Iraq. And such has been the case in U.S.-occupied Iraq.
It is clear that the Bush administration has no exit plan for this war -- a point that we feared.
Its plan seems to be simply to persist in crushing resistance. The fundamental fact -- that no occupying power can spread democracy by acting outside the bounds of international law -- does not seem to have registered.
Why do we remain silent?