Rallying to the Cause

Monday’s rally against a potential invasion of Iraq was a vital affirmation of the need for vigorous consideration of American foreign policy. Staged by the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice (HIPJ), the rally attracted more than 300 people to protest President Bush’s strong push for military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. At a time when war with Iraq seems increasingly certain, there has been a disturbing lack of debate among national leaders about the wisdom of military action.

Only a few courageous senators and representatives have spoken out strongly against any invasion; most are content to debate smaller points—the number of troops to deploy, the degree of international approval necessary to make an invasion successful and the degree of congressional oversight. The larger questions need to be asked, and need to be asked now, before preparations for war go any further and the military juggernaut takes on a life of its own.

There is a great deal of anti-war sentiment among the public, as demonstrated by the thousands of New Yorkers who turned out to protest Bush’s push for war in a huge Central Park rally on Monday. The protesters are acting as the nation’s conscience; they remind us that any war will be costly in terms of both American and Iraqi lives. They remind us that the anti-American feeling that will inevitably be engendered throughout the Arab world will hurt America in the long term. They remind us that those passions may even inflame a broader war in the Middle East, which would be an unmitigated disaster.

These difficult choices do not necessarily mean that a war is the wrong course to take; war is always dangerous but sometimes necessary. Still, when such fundamental issues are at stake, Congress and the American people ought to more closely consider the consequences of the action Bush proposes to undertake. Just yesterday, the CIA warned that invading Iraq could spur Hussein to encourage terrorist attacks against the United States, raising new questions about the wisdom of backing the Iraqi leader into a corner.

To sincerely and honestly discuss the critical issues of war, the anti-war movement needs a strong, conspicuous leader who has the courage to publicly disagree with the administration’s pro-war stance, who voices doubt that war is the right policy for America. No one has yet emerged who can crystallize the anti-war position as Bush has consolidated the pro-war forces; only through such a clash of ideas and ideologies can Congress and the American people reach a well-reasoned conclusion.

A forceful current of national pride engulfed the country in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Understandably, the threat to American citizens and institutions engendered a feeling of solidarity among the American public in defense of the country and its leaders. Patriotism and unquestioning obedience, however, do not go hand in hand. Supporting the United States’ system of government does not mean agreeing with every governmental policy—in fact, the democratic system depends on wide-ranging debate and the freedom of all citizens to question the wisdom of their government’s action.

Invading another nation in a preemptive strike is an act that carries inescapable economic, political and social ramifications. It is crucial that any action with such potentially severe consequences be strongly supported by America’s citizens. That consensus has not been reached yet; Monday’s HIPJ rally was one of many anti-war protests that have taken place across the nation. Congress must heed this public sentiment against military engagement with Iraq and debate more thoroughly President Bush’s proposed resolution.

Dissent: Protesters Ignore Iraqi Threat

While the HIPJ protesters’ ideals are noble, their refusal to contemplate any military action blinds them to the danger that Saddam Hussein poses to peace in the Middle East. The bold assumptions of several speakers at the really—that President Bush is only interested in oil and that unilateral U.S. action constitutes imperialist aggression—are particularly disturbing in light of their purported efforts to promote serious discussion of the issue. HIPJ marginalizes the threat Hussein poses in favor of unsubstantiated attacks on Bush and his foreign policy. Lecturer on History and Literature Timothy P. McCarthy ’93, for example, insisted that the Bush administration “poses the greatest threat to world peace.”

The Staff calls for more serious debate about a war with Iraq. But its praise of the most unacademic of protests suggests that it is more truly interested in boisterous public opposition to the war—an agenda which the American people do not share, despite several peace rallies. A recent CBS-New York Times poll finds that two-thirds of Americans favor military action to remove Hussein from power. Unquestionably there should be vigorous debate about any military action, but the majority of Americans clearly understand what HIPJ and the Staff do not: that Iraq, and not the United States, is the real threat to peace.

—David M. DeBartolo ’03 and Luke Smith ’04