Jonathan Friedman / Assisant Editor
In January 2003, I attended a peace rally with nearly 100,000 people in attendance. Although I was deeply disturbed by the blatant anti-Jewish sentiment exhibited by many at the rally, I was pleased to take part in an event in which people were protesting the Bush Administration’s drive toward a war with Iraq.
Two months later, to my disappointment, the American military invaded Iraq and a conflict began that has no end in sight. This past weekend, rallies were held throughout the world in opposition to the Iraq conflict. But as I saw the video footage and read articles about what the protestors were saying, I realized I no longer have a connection to the movement I was a part of three years ago.
Those leading the recent rallies were sending out a curious two-part message. They said the Iraq conflict has turned into a complete mess, with the newly created government being unstable and the United States and Iraq forces being helpless to do anything about the constant attacks by insurgents. That part I agree with. But where I differ with them is their rallying cry for the soldiers to be sent home.
When you admit the United States and its allies have created a disaster, but then say the American soldiers should come home, what you are basically saying is that we created a terrible situation, but it is not our job to improve it. My mother taught me that you shouldn’t create problems for other people, but if you do, you should do your best to make things better. The United States should not have started a war in Iraq, but since it did, we have no choice but to stick around until we have at least stabilized the country. To do otherwise would be a terrible disservice to the Iraqi people.
I do not know what those calling for the United States to withdraw from Iraq expect to happen after the Americans leave. The insurgents will not suddenly stop their attacks. They are in opposition to the current Iraqi government as well as the American presence. And with the new Iraqi military still in its infancy, it would do an even worse job handling the conflict than the Americans have.
I agree the Iraq conflict has been mishandled greatly. But the response should not be to give up, rather it should be to handle it better.
Another reason why I am alienated from the so-called peace movement is it is now beginning to protest a potential war in Iran. I am opposed to most wars and I can accept arguments that every conflict the United States has been involved in could have been avoided, minus the War of 1812. But an eventual war in Iran is very necessary, as the Iranian government is everything the Bush Administration claimed the Iraqi government was.
Iran is headed toward the development of nuclear weapons, has threatened the United States, supports Islamic fundamentalism and is directly connected to Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. I would hope people realize this and not just be against toppling Iran’s government because of a knee-jerk anti-Bush, anti-war reaction.
Perhaps the unpopular Bush Administration will never get around to the war and it will be a Democratic president elected in 2008 who will have to settle the matter. Then the Democrats will support it, since it is obvious that most Democrats will support a war if their man is conducting it. Just look at Bill Clinton’s Kosovo conflict, which was more unnecessary than anything Bush has done. And a post-2008 war against Iran, the Republicans hopefully would support it because they know what’s best, despite their leader being gone.
The United States cannot serve as the international police force, toppling cruel governments around the world. The logistics of doing that are obviously impossible. But what we can do is make sure that governments that are a direct threat to the United States do not continue to flourish. For now, the only government that fits that billing is the one in Iran.