I have had enough. I have seen one too many anti-war sentiments expressed in the Easterner’s pages. I chose to write this column to set some of those long-winded editorialists straight. Their views, while protected as free press, need to be challenged. What I will do is take some of the more popular anti-war arguments and debunk them.First, and possibly most common, is the “unilateral” one. These folks apparently don’t understand the meaning of the word. A unilateral action is one where one country engages in military conflict with another. This is obviously not the case. We have the support of some 40 countries. By support I mean troops, military base usage, fly-over rights, intelligence aid, financial aid, or just a supportive voice. All 40 countries are providing at least one of these.
Second, and just as false as the first, is that this war is unjustified. Those that make this argument apparently need a history refresher. Since the first Gulf war, there have been over 15 United Nations resolutions passed with regard to Iraq. Iraq’s compliance with these has been minimal at best. In fact, Saddam Hussein essentially laughed in the face of the international community by kicking out inspectors in 1998. By breaking the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the first war, Saddam had already justified continued military action against his regime.
Third, they complain that the U.N. Security Council did not sanction this military action. That is true, but once again they are in need of a little bit of historical knowledge. Since the creation of the U.N. over 50 years ago, there have been somewhere between 100 and 150 (depending on who you ask) military actions, conflicts, or wars performed by U.N. members. The Security Council sanctioned 2 of these: the Korean War and the Gulf War. Why is their approval so immensely important now? Well, to make it real simple, it’s not.Now, let me say just a few words about the protesters themselves. I will not call them names, because that would be stooping to their level. I will just point out a few of their inconsistencies. I didn’t see them protesting in 1998 (during Clinton’s impeachment hearings) when the U.S. launched hundreds of cruise missiles into Iraq. Let me remind you that Clinton didn’t seek U.N. approval. He didn’t seek congressional approval. He truly did act unilaterally, as I think he should have. I didn’t see those protesters complain while Saddam was gassing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. I have seen the footage of Iraqi villages with streets scattered with dead human beings. Where were the protesters then?
I would propose that maybe this anti-war sentiment isn’t anti-war at all. It is anti-Bush. This is evidenced by the choice of words of many in the anti-war community. Senator John Kerry went so far as to ask for a regime change not in Iraq, but in the U.S. To suggest the ousting of our commander-in-chief during a time of war, in my opinion, is the most despicable thing he could do. Apparently, these protesters only protest when the bombs have an “R” (Republican) on them, but not when they carry a “D” (Democrat).
Please, to all of you who actually do support our president and our troops, let your voice be heard. Drown out all of those voices that support the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Stop letting them hurt our troops’ morale.
To comment on this column, please email the author at Bosox11978@aol.com.