War, Peace, and Protests
Memo to all those "peace" marchers: Think before you rally. The slogans you chant might clash directly with the message you actually send.
A few disclaimers are in order first.
(1) To those of you waving signs and banners to protest the prospect of a war with Iraq, it is your right and in some sense your obligation to express those views as part of preserving and encouraging the spread of civil society. We may differ on substance, but no derogatory comments should be made of you for expressing your convictions.
(2) War is the most basic form of a necessary evil. Nobody likes it, and during it pure misery prevails. No sensible person would argue that war should be anything but the last recourse. But in some circumstances lives must be lost to save and liberate others' lives. Awful and unpleasant? Yes, but as we all know, dealing with events in the real world often leads to a series of very rough angles and sharp jagged edges that are never smoothed.
But let us return to the protesters and their "not in my name!" rallying cry. Those four words are quite enough to send this sincere egalitarianist into a rage. "Not in my name"! Not what in their name? War? Fine. The Bush administration's policies have many layers of ambiguity and tangential consequences. Opposing all or part of it is within the bounds of individual discretion. But think of the consequences if Mr. Hussein keeps his power. Surely you would not want those later vile deeds to be done in your name.
What deeds? Simple. If the "Butcher of Baghdad" keeps his throne (which no doubt he will do in the absence of war), those millions of innocent civilian women and children the protesters fear will die in war will die of starvation, torture, disease, or some combination of the three. This is not jingoist propaganda. These are cold, harsh facts. Taken to its most basic essence, when you say: "not in my name", you do not say: "We do not want war because we sincerely worry for the Iraqi people". When you say: "not in my name, you truly say: "We don't want war because we don't like Bush, Jr. We don't give two flicks of the wrist about the Iraqi people. Saddam can torment them for all we care. We just don't want the Bush crowd to win". How else can the "not in my name" rallying cry be construed? If you really cared about the women and children in Iraq, you would recognize that the way to save them is by getting rid of that head of state and the Baath Party who makes their lives so wretched. When you say "not in my name", you also say you value the lives of innocent Iraqis less than the lives of Americans or other Coalition member nationals. Surely that is not how you really perceive the situation?
Latest Articles