Anti-War Rhetoric is Absurd

If Kavin Paulraj's article "Keep Protesting" is any indication, the anti-war movement has not only lost on foreign policy, it has lost its sanity as well.

"The war is only beginning. The United States military, carefully protecting Iraqi oilfields, while allowing the ransack and plunder of Baghdad's National Museum . . . is in the Middle East for the long haul," writes Paulraj.

First of all, Paulraj does not seem to realize that burning oilfields are deadly to American soldiers in combat, and detrimental both to the environment and to future economic recovery in Iraq, while missing museum artifacts kill no one.

Second, is Paulraj implying that it is appropriate to use military force to save museum artifacts from looters? If so, why was it not appropriate to use military force to save human lives from Saddam? One must wonder, what is worth more to Paulraj: Iraqi artifacts or Iraqis? His willingness to use the U.S. military as he sees fit makes one question Paulraj's dedication to non-violence.

He invites further questioning of his sincerity when he later writes, "'Peace' alone is not a sufficient slogan anymore." Is he admitting that "peace" was never a cry of conscience but a slogan of convenience against his country?

Paulraj calls for "resistance against the United States"-that is, support for "Iraqi resistance fighters" These "resistance fighters," however, want to kill American soldiers. Proving that he is no pacifist, Paulraj calls this "justified."

Paulraj's treasonous rhetoric continues: "As citizens of the world, we owe it to our brothers and sisters in other countries to agitate, boycott, and overthrow the imperialist regime that rules us." It seems that dead American soldiers are not enough-Paulraj wants to overthrow his own government. In light of his support for Iraqi "resistance fighters," it is difficult to imagine that this will be done without violence.

In the last paragraph, however, Paulraj does seem to renounce violence by invoking "non-violent civil disobedience" in the tradition of Gandhi and King. But one cannot advocate peace and non-violence by supporting the "resistance fighters" who do not believe in those ideals.

The anti-war movement cannot claim to be concerned for the Iraqi people if it supports Saddam loyalists. It cannot claim to be "anti-war" if it supports war against its own country. It cannot claim to be American if it supports the deaths of its fellow citizens who serve and protect them.

Sincerely,
Dorothy Lam '05