< United We Stand--US Anti-war Protesters Play Into Saddam's hands?
 
Home | Forum | News | Articles | UWS Constitution | Links | Contact Us

US Anti-War Protesters Play Into Saddam's Hands
By Joshua Wiznitzer
Originally printed in the 01/27/03 issue of the Brandeis Free Press


Tens of thousands of individuals descended on the Mall in D.C. while others joined protests elsewhere around the country to remonstrate the launch of a military campaign against Saddam Hussein.

While these so called “anti-war” protesters may be well intended on their utopian wishes for peace, their movement is fueled by naivety and their actions are often more beneficial for America’s enemies than they are for America. For example, according to Reuters (Jan 18, ’03), Saddam Hussein lauded the anti-war protesters as a demonstration of international support both for his regime and against the United States.
It is the naivety and ignorance of this movement, which is so disturbing.

To paraphrase an argument put forth by Adam G. Mersereau in the NRO (National Review Online), the peace movement believes that America, in its role as a superpower wields so much economic and cultural influence over the world that the actions and policies of other nations can be interpreted only as mere reactions to the actions and policies of the USA.
As such, these people believe that without an action by the United States, there will be no reaction by others. Furthermore, Mersereau argues: “The peace activist concludes that the US can make a unilateral decision for peace, simply by choosing to lay down its arms. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U.N. directives and treaties, and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace, then peace would prevail by default.” (1/15/03)
Merserau then, correctly, concludes that unless the dictators of the world share this same utopian belief, this course of action is useless. Yet the peace movement believes that we should wait for the rest of the world to come to agreement with their utopian philosophy—which is absurd because by unilaterally disarming we are leaving ourselves wide
open to attack.

Why would we ever do that?!? Our country is currently engaged in a war - the War on Terrorism. This was not a war that the US started, rather it was our country that was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, and ever since that date we have been at war against terrorism and those regimes, which provide aid and a safe haven to terrorism.
Yet the anti-war/peace advocates denounce this war on terror. They protested our attack against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yet, it was our nation’s military that successfully ousted the Taliban from power (something that diplomacy was unable to do).
It was our military that liberated Afghanistan, ending the rule of an oppressive terror- supporting regime, and in the process providing its citizens with liberty and a newfound sense of freedom and peace.
President Reagan once said: “America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally… Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace.”

Now we have Saddam Hussein and his regime in the crosshairs as our next target in the war on terrorism. Hussein has repeatedly posed a threat to the security of the Middle East, the United States and her allies as well as to the Iraqi people. Saddam’s acts of genocide, violations of UN resolutions, usage of chemical weapons, and support of terrorism are all well documented.

Inspections, diplomacy, and economic sanctions have not had any major effect. As David Limbaugh points out in his recent column: “…what incentive does this tyrannical sociopath have to disarm? Power is his very reason for existence. He’s about as likely to disarm voluntarily as he is to drain his own body dry of blood. Not only is power his lifeblood; it is the only thing he understands, the only language he speaks”

Nevertheless, the "peace activists" want us to trust this man! Have we not learned anything from history? Just as Hitler, another power hungry tyrannical sociopath, continually did not respond to diplomacy, neither will Saddam Hussein. If we fail to take action against Saddam Hussein, and continue to appease Saddam as the peace movement wants us to do, Hussein’s regime and support of terror will remain a threat to the free world, and the Iraqi people will continue to suffer under dictatorship.

As such, the use of (military) force is the only answer that we have to remove Saddam from power. Removing Saddam will bring both liberty and prosperity to the Iraqi people and will make the world a safer place.
While many innocent Iraqi and patriotic American servicemen and women may lose their lives, they will not be doing so in vain; they will be fighting to make the world a better place. As the great American patriot Thomas Jefferson once said: “From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
President Bush said on Sept. 20, 01: “We have seen their [kind of terrorists and their supporters] before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.”


Copyright 2003--United We Stand, Brandeis University