If Hentor meant “in the United States”, he should have said so. In any case, there were also very large protests in the US, I seem to recall.
Magellan01, remember that some of the returning troops join the protests because they believe that it’s the right thing to do and that it will save lives.
I don’t think that anyone doubts that the war protests shortened our involvement in Vietnam. (They also contributed to President Johnson’s decision not to run for reelection.)
For some, it isn’t just about saving lives. It is about losing the reality of the principles of democracy here while hoping to establish it elsewhere.
There were some very large ones, and I was at the DC protest on October 26 '02. Despite the large numbers of people at some of these things, opposition to the war before it started and as it started was definitely a minority opinion. I mean, the US has five times as many people as Italy and Britain, and you still didn’t see a million people coming to New York to protest.
Well, GW started the war on what he claimed was valid evidence of a clear and present danger. That has since changed to bringing democracy to the Near East, starting with Iraq. When the cost in lives, both US and Iraqi, is brought up the answer is essentially “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” The protestors have the goal of ending the killing as soon as possible. When it is argued that this endangers the troops I can’t see why the answer “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” isn’t just as valid for their goal as it is for GW’s.
Your argument seems to have become it is more moral to use an effective protest, i.e. pressuring congress than it is to use an ineffective one, *i.e.*street protests.
Huh? The anti-war movement pretty much peaked in 1970 (the year of the Kent State shootings). U.S. troops were not finally pulled out until 1973. Was that really any sooner than it would have been without the anti-war movement?
I don’t think that question is answerable. In any event, I think it is true that the protests moved the US government a long way along the route of withdrawal. LBJ quit because he saw how unpopular he and the war had become. Nixon was elected because he promised to end the war. Of course the first thing he did was widen it into Cambodia, but he did finally fulfill his comittments to end the war.
As a citizen of a democracy a lot of civic decisions we make can in some way indirectly put lives in danger. The American public was quite in favor of responding with a full scale outright war after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The America of 1942 was not the America of today. Many of the people who were clamoring for war didn’t grow up in an era of “faux-wars” like the various “police actions” or “peacekeeping” affairs that America had been engaged in post-Vietnam. And, as personal or as tragic as this war may have been for some people back home, ask yourself how it really affects your day to day life. Unless you have a family member or friend actually in Iraq I’m willing to bet it really doesn’t affect your day to day life. When Americans clamored for war in response to Pearl Harbor they had a good idea that this was a big thing. This was going to change their lives and hundreds of thousands or even more would die in the process. Yet they committed to supporting the war. Just because actually getting behind the war made it all but certain that soldiers would die did not make the action immoral. Just because death is in the equation does not mean the whole process is immoral. Sometimes in life you have to make decisions where you have to weigh the value of losing 100,000 lives against the costs of inaction.
People who supported the current Iraq war and those who continue to support our presence in Iraq (which I won’t deem a war) were well aware that people would die. I personally am not surprised by the number 2,000. I figured several hundred would die in the initial invasion and I predicted we’d have a major troop presence in Iraq for at least seven years and probably some degree of military commitment for many many years after that, I predicted that over many years the deaths would pile up. The number 2,000 in two years really doesn’t surprise me. For various reasons I felt that the gains of knocking out Saddam Hussein’s government outweighed the costs, and that it was the correct action to take.
Likewise, there is a good chance that insurgents are “strengthened” in their own resolve when they see anti-war protests. But if you’re against the war then hopefully it’s because you’ve come to some logical conclusion that withdrawing is better than staying, and taken into account all factors relating to that (ie any deaths that may happen leaving, or deaths caused by insurgents wanting the public to pressure the government into withdrawing.) Of course I wouldn’t fret too much. Iraq war protests really don’t get much publicity, not like they did before the war. Only 2,000 Americans have died over two years, this isn’t Vietnam and it’s really not even what I would consider a hugely costly conflict, it’s only seen as such by a public that really hasn’t had to deal with a very bloody war in a long time. And the insurgents tend to use whatever they can to strengthen their resolve and ignore anything that says they aren’t doing a good job. Basically they’re going to find reasons to think they’re doing well no matter what we do over here in the states. And they’re going to feel like they are eroding America’s will to fight no matter what happens over here in the states.
Ask your brother if he thinks Rush Limbaugh endangers the troops in Iraq as well. After all, Limbaugh’s show is carried on Armed Forces Radio, which gets transmitted over Iraq airwaves for anyone to pick up – including stuff like making fun of Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals and selling “Club Gitmo” T-shirts. Might just piss off a few insurgents to go out and attack American servicemen in response, ya think?
It’s fairly clear that the OP is directed at Americans failing to fall in line behind the leader. However, perhaps I am wrong, and the morality of opposing the war by people around the world is in question.
magellan01, please do not forget Osama bin Laden. Bush has.
Finally, the argument that those who protest the war are emboldening the terrorists seems to me to be predicated on the assumption that by sheer unanimity of force, those we oppose will be cowed and give up. That, were they to scour the American media and find that no soccer moms opposed the war, they would turn tail and run.
What Bush has done is far more harmful than anything some middle class American with a placard could do. He has exposed the limitations of American military force. We are bogged down in a small middle eastern country, unable to exert control and losing manpower by the day through our inability to meet recruitment goals. We cannot threaten force against anyone right now, and the world knows it. If you think our problems are some handful of protesters in the park, you are exceptionally naive.
The greatest patriots in the US are those protesting the war. Writing to your congressmen is a great idea. But it’s mass rallies that change the minds. Martin Luther King could have written to Congress until his arm fell off, it wouldn’t have had one percent of the impact of filling the Mall in Washington.
I reject the notion that we cannot protest the war because it “aids the enemy”. If this was true, then despots would be free to provoke wars at will because once a war starts, no matter how thin the pretense, protesting it would “aid the enemy.”
Technical Question: Can Congress order an end to operations in Iraq ? How is it possible for them to overide Bush in regard to wars ?
In a way protesting with Congressman makes sense… but big protest marches send the message that its ok to be against the War… and write letters to your Congressman. If Bush could bribe and shut up individual senators… its much harder to say thinks are going nice when you have mass marches against your pet war.
Still like Magellan said... its past tense... Iraq was invaded... why struggle. I guess the French Collaborationists thought the same... the slavs that pinned a nazi party button too. Done is done... why do the right thing ?They might. But it wouldn’t be so obvious as a march on Washington.
Protests, like any disention among one’s enemy, points to weakness. The best case is for your enmy to view you as solid, powerful, and committed. The more the enemy thinks that is the case the more likely they will be to see their efforts as futile and seek to resolve things through negotiations, where they might be able to get a carrot or two. If the enemy views us as fractured, they would be wise to exploit that fissure in hopes of cracking our collective resolve. This is not a new concept in warfare. In this particular case, the tactics include more killings and beheadings. That raises the voice of those who advocate withdrawl because of those killings. That, in turn, tells the terrorists that theirat ctics work, which encourages them to do more of the same. And on it on it goes. Advocates of withdrawl inadvertently become an instrument of our enemy.
War is ugly business and requires a tolerance for young people dying. That’s a horrible fact but a fact none the less. That’s why we should not go to war. But once we’re there, I think our responsibility is to our troops that are over there. Bill Maher put a book out a couple of years ago asking, essentially, what is being asked of us other than to continue shopping. I would offer that we could support our troops by not aiding the enemy IN ANY WAY, even if it is inadvertent.
By refusing to provide funding, mainly. Legislation, and veto overrides if necessary, also work. But first the will to do so has to be present.
Not when you’re trying to sell democracy as a superior alternative. The putative reason for this war, in this regard, is to liberate and democratize Iraq, not to conquer and subjugate it. Otherwise you might have a point.
What if the fracture they are really looking for isn’t internal (USA) … but the “West” as a whole ? The USA is not western civilization by itself… and these radicals are fighting the westernization of the Arab world in general. In this case Bush has aided their cause no by creating rifts among the western powers ? See Iran where before Bush one might have had a united effort to make them stop their nuclear intentions.
(Yep I know very open ended ideas… but I doubt AQ works with spreadsheets)
Eh. I prefer to think of it as demonstrating the strength of the democratic process. From their perspective, we’ve already proved we don’t have the will to stick it out in a hard fight.
I don’t think that’s a realistic assessment today. They do get CNN in the Middle East, after all. People would have had to stop protesting before the war for people to get the impression that the United States was unified on this issue. Same goes for Spain and England. It’s not possible to present the same kind of united front that Germany might have seen in World War II. Not without some horrific press controls.
So mostly, your argument seems to boil down to “they’ll try harder” and “they’ll try to exploit it.” They will, but I’m not convinced that they wouldn’t resort to the gruesome killings anyway. There was essentially no protest of the Afghan war, and we know what happened to Daniel Pearl. These people have some media savvy, and it doesn’t take anything more than common sense to know that people would be horrified by beheadings. And they were never going to negotiate, that’s absurd. They have resorted to these kinds of tactics because they lack the raw power to fight and wouldn’t otherwise be able to get what they want at the bargaining table.
The troops, however, are supposed to be fighting on my behalf, and I think that I should probably stick up for theirs if I think what they’ve been sent to do is unnecessary.
There’s a vague element of paranoia here. And I don’t know if Bill Maher would agree with you.
So, in your opinion a protest by the people of Iraq against the invasion of Kuwait would be wrong, since it would put Iraqi boys at risk? Is any act of aggression blatant enough not to to fall under your rule?
BTW, no one is protesting about Afghanistan, and it doesn’t seem to have made the Taliban quit.
According to the way the Constituion is written Congress is the supreme authority so long as they exercise only that authority that the Constitution provides.
Any money that is spent for any purpose must be appropriated by Congress. Article I, Sect 8 part 17 - “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of an appropriation made by law …” Only Congress makes laws. So Congress could simply refuse to appropriate any money for conducting the Iraq war.
Congress could also simply direct the President by law to withdraw from Iraq post haste. If he refuses to do so he has violated his duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Under the provisions for the powers and duties of the President: Article II, Sect 3 “… he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed …”
If the President refuses to follow this law he can be impeached and removed from office. Congress is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense and if they so desire can keep removing Presidents from office until they find one that will do as they direct.
With the military already engaged none of the above will happen, but all of them are within the stated powers of Congress.
Because the two are related. The protests against Iraq show desent in America (and a breach between the US and Europe and various other nations)…thats to the good for the Taliban as well, especially if it gets more active eventually. Besides, I don’t think anyone is saying that there would be NO fighting if there was no anti-war protest…only that such protests are an encouraging signal to the various insurgent/terrorist groups out there.
-XT
Elvis, Rashak, Marley, Voyager, I think you’ve all made very good points. I can’t get to them now, but just wanted to thank you for thoughtful insights and questions. I’ll try to get to them this evening.
Yeesh. Now we can’t protest anything anywhere, huh? Any dissention regarding conflicts by people in America can be taken as a sign that fighting back will be successful? This is a very simplistic and unintelligent line of argument that has just taken a HUGE step back. Shortly one expects to hear that opposing Bush’s Gulf Coast Wage Cut will serve to get our boys killed by the emboldened terrorists of Iraq, or failing to get behind Social Security reform will cause Kim Jong Il to step up his nuclear development program.