The Red and Black

Issue date: 1/29/07 Section: Opinions

Those of you who support the war in Iraq should be ashamed of yourselves - not for your support of the war but because you failed to articulate the overwhelming case for action against Saddam and the separate case for continued battle against Iraq's domestic insurgency and Islamic terrorism.

I'm not an expert on foreign policy. I certainly never have fought in a war or lost a relative in one. However, I like to think I can distinguish right from wrong and good judgments from bad ones. This is the task of all citizens in the West, particularly in regard to the Iraq War.

As a result of our limited national debate on the subject, our efforts are imperiled in Iraq to bring about change in the Middle East, a part of the world divided between dictators who incite their people and vicious clerics who encourage suicide bombings of civilians.

How liberal or chic is it for University students, as unversed in military affairs as I am, to oppose the liberation of 25 million oppressed Muslims from a madman - a madman who put political dissidents through plastic shredders and used chemical weapons against thousands of women and children?

Saddam sheltered Islamic terrorists, and over a million Muslims died in his wars. An early exit from Iraq would precipitate more turmoil and a horrible massacre.

Students should not be timid about supporting the war. Many of you who support the war are motivated by concerns for human rights and democracy where it has never flourished.

Support for this war requires a realistic view of human nature and knowledge of the ways lasting peace has been achieved in the past.

Given that the Iraqi dictator could transfer WMDs to terrorist cells and that he violated 18 United Nations resolutions, the United States was confronted with bad and worse options.

Invading countries is bad, but living with Saddam and the status quo in the Middle East is worse.

We who walk campus safely must understand that Iraq presents a unique opportunity to fight Islamic terrorists on our own terms and to create a moderate ally who can pressure bad actors in the region.

These many years later, objecting that no WMDs were found is common but childish. The world had every reason to believe that Saddam possessed them.

It is a remarkable claim to say that Saddam would not have pursued WMDs again in the future. You supporters of the war failed to make this clear.

I think our only option is to send thousands more Marines to Iraq. Baghdad must be pacified and the Syrian border should be sealed. Iran should be made to know that further meddling in Iraq will result in serious consequences.

In this respect, the Bush administration and its supporters made a mistake, but we must remain realistic.

Why do we demand that supporters of the war explain themselves?

The burden is on opponents of the war to explain the strange notion that Saddam was never a threat to our interests and why our efforts haven't produced the chance of a Middle East free from thugs and religious barbarism. A single terrorist can kill thousands of people. We can't afford to not be on the offensive around the world.

Certainly, reasonable people can disagree, but you opponents of the war have failed to offer either viable alternatives or serious objections. Our invasion of Iraq is a long-term commitment. It offers the chance of reform and democracy that largely doesn't exist in the Middle East.

It is the threatening culture of religious violence and tyranny we are seeking to change. It is a noble and necessary effort, indeed, and every straight-thinking person on campus should voice - loudly - their support of it.


- Bradley Alexander is a senior from Macon majoring in political science and newspapers

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools