My brother insists that if I participate in anti-Iraq-War demonstrations, I am putting U.S. soldiers’ lives at risk: The insurgents/terrorists know their only chance of winning is if the U.S. pulls out its troops; they more soldiers they kill the likelier that prospect is; anti-war protests only encourage them to kill more and hasten the day. What do you think? Is this a good argument? Is it a good reason not to protest, however you might feel about the war?
The sooner the Powers That Be admit that we can never “win” in that disastrous situation, and find a way to bring our troops home, the fewer of them will have to die first.
One could argue just as strongly that it’s immoral *not *to protest.
Its two questions IMHO. First off, will more US soldiers die due to protests, will it encourage the insurgents? IMHO yes…more US soldiers will potentially die, and the insurgents will be encouraged. I have no real evidence for this aside from a gut feeling and some interviews I remember from several Vietnamese about watching our media and gaging what to do (and what not to do) based on watching their commentary and the level of protest. I think that the Iraqi insurgents/AQ do basically the same thing and we’d be foolish not to realize that they can flip on a TV to get a feeling for things here in the US and in Europe.
The second question is…is it then immoral somehow if you really feel strongly against the war? IMHO no…its your duty as a US citizen to make an informed decision and then to make sure your government knows your views. Whether or not this puts US soldiers (including my son) at risk, its your right and even your duty to follow your heart and do what you think is best, reguardless of the consequences. If you didn’t do that and you held back from what you thought was right…well, THAT would be ‘immoral’.
IMHO, YMMV and all that.
-XT
Given that there has been very little in the way of protests of the Iraq War, and yet there have been nearly 2,000 Americans killed there, it is exceptionally hard to blame Iraq War protests for the deaths of Americans. This argument is actually one of right wing knee jerk “you hate America” stunted logic. It’s a last gasp desperation attempt to convince others that the war in Iraq is right or justified when everything else is telling Iraq war supporters that it is a terrible failure.
If John Kerry had had the nads to state (and vote) his opposition clearly, we may not have had to ask anyone to be the last person to die for a mistake yet again.
Protesting the war endangers our troops, and hence, is unpatriotic, even treasonous.
Gee, where have I heard that before.
Democracy ain’t for sissies. To participate means to take a share in the collective responsibility. You take a share of the consequences.
If dissent can be silenced simply by starting an armed conflict, it will serve as an irresistable temptation for scoundrels. If you can enforce consent, by whatever means, obviously it is no longer consent.
If they can wrap a turd in the flag and you feel compelled to salute it, America is lost. Another nation may rise in its place, one free of dissent, unified, single minded to all appearance. Democratic in form, tyrannical in practice. It may be powerful, it may be rich, it may even be feared and admired.
But it won’t be America.
As is the norm, I’m with XT.
I think its pretty obvious that such protests would encourage those fighting US troops; taking away the US’s will to fight is really the only hope any terrorist-type group has of defeating the US, and such protests can persuade them they are winning. Nonetheless, it does not follow that such protests are themselves wrong or immoral.
The nearest analogy I can think of is being a juror on a case where rendering a certain verdict carries the threat of some sort of rioting. Justice demands you speak your conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
Quite the moral conundrum. I admire and appreciate the thought you are putting into this. I wish I could believe that all those that have chosen to protest have pondered the issue so seriously.
I think xtisme framed the problem very well. I do think there are some other things to consider. The first is, what do you hope to accomplish by the protest? I think protesting before the war was a more fruitful endeavor, because right now I think it is an impossibility that Bush is going to pull out until he sees fit.
Given that, I’d ask myself, what would be the effect of my protest. IMHO the effect here in the U.S. will be negligible at best. But your brother is right in that it will have an effect on the enemy. In a perfect world (okay, not perfect) the enemy would believe that that every single person is behind the country’s efforts and that its will will not crack. WWII offers a good example of this.
That said, if you do decide to protest the war, I’d ask you to consider how. Writiing a letter a day to congressmen, senators and the White House would probably do more than marching, without that unintended negative effects. Also, again IMHO, I do not think it does the cause or the country good to piss on the President—not that all have the right to do that. The weaker he seems, the weaker we seem, and I think that does encourage the enemy. For me, once the troops are over there, I’m behind them and would not do anything that might hurt their efforts or help their opponents. It was not and is not their decision to fight, so even if I would be against the effort I would either keep mum or find some other way to register my protest, as I’ve already mentioned.
I hope you find the right balance for yourself.
As an aside, BrainGlutton, you had asked for some info from me which I hunted down and provided, but you never acknowledged it. I only mention this thinking that you may be unaware it has been supplied.
Exactly the analogy I was groping for, especially the last sentence.
-XT
If the Commander in Chief can put our military in actual danger of death or dismemberment based on flimsy intelligence data when at the same time there were contrary data being developed, then I certainly have the right and the maybe duty to risk hypothetical danger in order to point out the CiC’s blunder.
But I’m not risking my life you say? Well, the CiC isn’t risking his either.
Which thread?
Course the biggest aid we could ever give to our opponents in the global war on terror, would be to engage in a futile, brutal and disconnected conflict that not only drains resources from the real problem, but encourages the formation of new global terrorism networks.
The one in which we were discussing illegal immigration. The first half of the imformation is in the post immediately following your reminider. There is another response further down.
I just can’t let what an insurgent might do take precedence over doing what I think is the right thing. Pretty much what xstime and furt say. And I think the idea that protesting a war “hurts” American troops and “helps the enemy” has been overrated. Is the insurgency going to die out if no one over here protests? I find that very hard to believe. That’s happening because the soldiers are over there. While I understand this could have an effect on morale, I’m not the one who put the soldiers in the position that they’re in, and I don’t think it’s right for me to stifle my objections and permit someone else’s mistake to continue.
The flaw with this is if everyone in all of America supported the war, would they stop killing U.S. soldiers? Of course not.
If you don’t believe we should be there, of course it’s moral to protest; how else will you get them out ? Your brother’s arguement also contains the assumption that Iraqi lives are worthless, since we’ll kill more every day we are there.
As far as putting our troops lives at risk, I fail to see why that matters. When you engage in a war of conquest, you have no moral right to complain when your victims dare to fight back.
Well, bringing all the troops home right now means fewer more get killed than if they stick around and wait for the inevitable next IED. I’m sorry, as it’s your brother and all, but this is little more than a bullshit chicken-egg argument. NO Americans would be getting killed if we never set foot in the place to begin with, and as the war never should have happened, it’s pretty astonishing somebody would argue we should stop protesting it to save American lives. Bizarre, even.
Let me see if I understand this: because Bush acted in a way counter to your wishes and it resulted in troops dying, you would like to show your anger and backbone by acting in a way counter to his wishes that will similarly endanger our troops.
Boy, that’ll show’em. Maybe you were absent that day in kindergarten when they taught the stuff about two wrongs not making a right…
I’m sure the loved ones of all those in harm’s way will appreciate your strong “principles”. Eh, but what does it matter. As long as you stick it to Bush (in your head), all is well, right?
Bush sending the troops to Iraq and David protesting the war “similarly endanger our troops?” I’m sorry, but on it’s face, that’s a horrible comparison.
So, do you think the “the loved ones of all those in harm’s way” will appreciate it when Bush sacrifices those loved ones on the altar of his ego and greed ? There is one way, and only one to stop American soldiers from getting killed, and that’s to leave. Sneering at people for complaining won’t stop the killing.
First of all, this is not true. Terrorists were killing Americans before Iraq and before 911. And we are now well past the point of considering what WOULD HAVE happened IF we never went. The fact is the right now young American men and women are over there in harm’s way. And protesting is not going to change that fact. What do you think is going to happen? Do you think Bush is going to see your protest and say “Oh, I had no idea. They have a good point. Quick, get Rummy on the phone, we’re bringing the boys home!”? Tell me, at this point in time, what is the realistic upside?