Anti-war Protestors in USA: How strong is their moral justification?

Great Debates
1

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about lately: Do the anti-war protestors, who are patently not being killed in this war, have that strong of a moral case for their demonstrations?

I support the war for the simple fact that I feel Saddam has been in violation of the agreement that ended the last Gulf War for several years now, and I don’t think you can ever expect to enforce international law if you don’t have an “or else” to back up your resolutions (just like simply telling mafia bosses “you’re in violation of the law” and letting them continue to run loose will not stop their crimes, nor deter others–you need to arrest and imprison them).

That said, I am still greatly disturbed by the Bush admin. in general, the arrogant attitude of folks like Rumsfeld, and, most importantly, the vast number of vague reasons Bush has given for the invasion, many of which apply at least as strongly to lots of other countries around the world (human rights abuses, giving aid to terrorists, etc.). It makes the oil-grab arguments (and the, IMO, more-credible desire to have a strong foothold in the M.E. from which to project our military power in the future) that much stronger.

So I’m not really opposed to anti-war protests. I’m glad to see people getting so worked up about something, rather than complacently letting a war that they disagree with be conducted without comment. (Esp. since my feelings about the war are somewhat ambivalent … I feel like I have people on both sides of the argument making a stir for me.) I work in NYC, and didn’t even mind the demonstrations that screwed up 5th ave. last week (and I have to walk through that area every day on my way from Grand Central). Not that big a deal, IMO.

But I’m also of two minds about the moral weight and justification these protestors bring to the battle. Many (and yes, I am vastly, vastly, vastly oversimplifying) are middle-class white folks who are not suffering any hardship whatsoever from the war. They are not being blown to pieces. They are (for the most part) not relatives of those being blown to pieces. So they protest on the behalf of the innocent Iraqi civilians who are already dying in this war.

So on the one hand, I guess I can applaud them for the fact that they’re giving a voice to those who don’t have one.

On the other hand, they remind me of a trip I made to Alabama this January. I went through all of the civil rights museum in Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery. There, in the 60s, people were being oppressed. They were denied the right to vote, even though the Federal Govt. said that they specifically were allowed to. So they protested the oppression against themselves, and were beaten and tear-gassed and attacked by dogs for their efforts.

These people, it seems to me, had some serious moral justification for protest. They were suffering and couldn’t take it any more. I just can’t see the same parallel between what they went through and what the comfortable, unsuffering protestors today, whose lives will continue on as usual whether the war stops or continues, are doing today.

Then again, I think of Viola Liuzzo, a white housewife from Detroit who was so moved by what she saw happening in Alabama that she drove down to Monntgomery during the 1965 march to help out. She was shot dead by the KKK while driving black protestors between Montgomery and Selma. Surely her martyrdom meant something.

So, do you actually have to be a member of an oppressed group in order for your protest to be meaningful?

2

You assume that protesting the war:

  1. Requires the conflict immediatly cause suffering to the person protesting
  2. Means you don’t care about the people in Iraq.

Both of which arn’t true, and I think you can probably understand why without me going into it.

The biggest argument against this war is that the foreign policy Bush has embarked on has justified pre-emptive war, bred hatred of the United States worldwide, and the discrediting of the UN. While Bush might benefit from being able to say he “liberated” Iraq in the short term, the utility of his actions will prove to be tremendously negative in the long term. This war is not in US interests.

-C

3

Er, sorry, I clicked send before I got to the point.

The point is that all these American protesters are very much the “oppressed class” here, becuase we’re going to suffer from increased terrorism, reduced Constitutional rights, international bigotry, and the possibility of the fear that comes with living in a state of perpetual war.

-C

4

So what the OP is asking is: does the lack of self-interest in the actions of the protestors renders their protests less credible, rather than more?

5

Well, what with my asthma and the plate in my leg, I couldn’t serve in the military even if I wanted to. Plus you might be surprised which of us white, liberal, middle-class people have loved ones who are directly involved;

To address your OP more directly: it’s a complex issue. Why have I been demonstrating? Well, I imagine it’s rather dangerous for Iraqis to do so right now, what with the bombs dropping and all. And those in the military, even if they disagree with the war as it has been waged, certainly don’t have many opportunities to demonstrate, even if they wanted to.

Another important reason is that I believe the way the U.S. has ignored and/or dismissed the concerns of most of the rest of the world will damage our ability to engage in productive diplomatic efforts on all sorts of unrelated issues for many, many years to come. These issues (political, economic, human rights, environmental, etc.) affect me and people I care about, both directly and indirectly. I believe this war is wasting billions and billions of dollars which could be put to much better use, both domestically and overseas.

I believe we are all human beings before we are Americans or Iraqis, and so I am demonstrating on behalf of my fellow human beings who cannot or are afraid to do so. I believe this war already has, and will continue to create, an upswing in anti-American sentiment around the world, and as someone who both deals with foreigners for a living and enjoys travel abroad, this affects me directly.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head; I’m sure others will add their thoughts as well, and that I’ll think of more things later.

6

It’s not just a moral issue. While I’m sure there are many protestors who would object to all wars, there are also more pragmatic reasons to oppose this particular war. The reasons have been spelled out fairly well already in this thread, but in short, it’s foolhardy for our administration to go against world opinion. Abandoning the U.N. is not going to be good for our foreign policy in the long run, and is likely going to make things worse for the U.S.

But to take your analogy further, if a rogue cop took it upon himself to execute the mafia bosses in violation of department orders, how would that be viewed?

7

If this war is about Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions, then it’s up to the UN to authorize the use of force.

If this war is about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States, then evidence of that threat must be presented.

If this war is about Iraq being a repressive country, then a convincing argument that Iraq should be targeted overe other repressive countries must be made.

Since none of these criteria have been met, the war is immoral. The protesters thus automatically have a meaningful purpose (and even a responsibility) to oppose and end the United States’ government’s immoral act.

8

** If this war is about Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions, then it’s up to the UN to authorize the use of force. **

Which will never happen while France has veto power

** If this war is about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States, then evidence of that threat must be presented. **

If not for the fact that broadcasting this information would, more likely than not, also expose our operatives who have gained the information. It doesn’t bother me that we’re being kept in the dark about imminent threats by the administration; it’s their job to take care of neutralizing the threat, not mine.

** If this war is about Iraq being a repressive country, then a convincing argument that Iraq should be targeted overe other repressive countries must be made. **

Gotta start somewhere, and this guy’s got the longest rap sheet, IMO.

While I don’t necessarily think that this is the best and most triumphantly moral war of all time, I do think that it’s high time we did something about Saddam, since he has absolutely no intention of stepping down, and that, moreover, he is on record as offering financial incentive for Palestinian extremists to commit acts of terrorism on our allies, the Israelis. What I’d also like to point out is the left’s seeming blindness to the genocidal atrocities committed by Hussein against very specific racial groups in Iraq (considering the normal admirable watchfulness of racism, which I applaud). Why shouldn’t the removal of an immoral madman be sufficient moral sway as a causus belli?

As far as the OP, lack of self-interest has never stopped protesters before, and I don’t think that it makes it any less effective in this case. However, I think that many people are sufficiently polarized to the point that no matter the amount of protest, it won’t make any difference in the short run. As has been stated in other threads, though, some protesters are after the removal of the GOP from office; we’ll have to wait to see if they achieve this goal.

9

Also, has anyone noticed that certain threads in here become “hawk” threads and others “dove” threads? Just an observation I’ve made lately. I try not to take it personally when people have differences in opinion, but judging by some of the stuff that goes on around here (and more often in BBQ), civilization is truly skin deep sometimes.

10

Thanks. This is what I’m trying to illuminate. I just gave my views up-front to tell folks that I’m not a knee-jerk hawk or dove when it comes to this war.

And as the others have pointed out, yes, there are a multiplicity of reasons not to go to war (much as there are many reasons on the other side), some of them involving more self-interest (I don’t want the entire world to hate us, etc.). I guess I’m focused on the other reasons (don’t kill innocent Iraqis).

11

Again, getting back to the OP, I noticed that the original question is slightly different than that posed in summary at the close, and I’d like to address the latter with a different example:

Compare workers in a labor union striking, marching etc. to a group of white upper-class youths who are marching in protest of Affirmative Action because it withheld them from admission to a top-tier school. Both groups have a lot of self-interest in the issue at hand (both could argue that they are being “oppressed”), yet I feel there is a vast chasm in how effective and meaningful these two protests would be.

As far as the current anti-war protests, they are ineffective in convincing the pro-war side for the above extreme polarization reason, and even more ineffective at convincing those responsible for the war’s undertaking; however, if you guys think that it’ll help our image worldwide, more power to ya.

12

Nonsense. France threatened to use its veto because they did not feel military action was justified in this instance; that does not mean they’d automatically veto all US-backed resolutions just out of spite.

Again, nonsense. Even if this information cannot be shared with the public at large, it could certainly be shared with the intelligence agencies in France and Germany, and persuade(d) them to agree with our war efforts. They’re all partners in our “war on terrorism,” after all; either we don’t trust them with our intelligence, or we have none to begin with.

Saudi Arabia? Qa’tar? Kuwait? North Korea? Oh, wait, we only go after repressive regimes that don’t give us cheap oil and can’t threaten us with nukes…

Because nobody has yet to pin the “Sheriff of the World” badge on George W. Bush’s shirt yet.

13

toadspittle - is part of your discomfort a sneaking suspicion that some of the protesters are just jumping on a bandwagon and (to mix a metaphor) grandstanding?

There are certainly people (more often anti than pro) who were not concerned about or involved in politics until quite recently. I’ve been invited to anti-war activities by people who - and I know this because I gave them so much shit during the last election - have never even registered to vote. I find it dismaying, and ironic, that only the idea of a glorious cause has moved these people to political action.

On the OP, I have no problem with organized protests of anything. One hopes that by being part of a protest, people become more committed to being active in politics, and that by seeing protest, people open their minds a little tiny bit. One hopes this with starry, starry eyes…

14

I think the questions you offered have been adequately answered by the administration. However, war, or anything else seldom moves on morals. Politics are governed by more practical concerns. We have been already been attacked by those who openly promoted the downfall of the US. Many countries in that region teach American hatred to their children and I don’t see this as stopping until something is done to stop it. Replacing Saddam’s cruel dictatorship with a solid democracy that frees the people of Iraq is a good step. It will show others we promote freedom and goodwill. It will also provide a base for military operations close to our potential enemies. I see this as a very good move for world peace in the future. You turn your back on your enemies and you will be shot in it. History has taught that lesson many times over. Those who wish to protest the war are free to do so, it was the American solders that fought and died to give them that right. I hope they don’t take it for granted.

15

Aiee!! Quick someone distract Collounsbury before he sees lekatt’s post. He’ll get himself re-banned for sure!

Enjoy,
Steven