I am anti-war but it seems ridiculous to take any side, be it ours or theirs. This attitude also repels potential anti-war moderates.

Don't the people of Iraq have a right to defend themselves from an invasion by U.S. and British military forces?

If I see a woman about to be brutally raped by a gang of thugs carrying lead pipes, should I support her efforts at resisting her attackers?

Or should I not take sides with the hope that the situation could be resolved peacefully?

We want to avoid the folly of the Vietnam generation who

alienated potential allies in their anti-war movement by

just chastising American troops for the hell of it. But

when they commit atrocities, as they did in My Lai and

other instances, then critiques of them as "baby-killers"

and what not are somewhat justified.

We should not support Saddam, but there is some justification

in supporting the sovereignty of Iraqi citizens. Its

getting complicated because the atrocities committed

by our armed forces in Basra and other southern cities

are turing potential allies into enemies. Iraqis in those

southern regions who were ready to welcome the US with

open arms as a legitimate bulwark against Saddam are now

experiencing a change of heart because of the US's complete

lack of regard for their sovereignty. So now you have

people who would have supported our troops turning against

them.

Supporting the Iraqi citizens who are fighting against

our troops could be a public relations disaster for the

anti-war movement, but put into context, if that is possible within the co-opting American mass media, could be a

powerful statement of solidarity against US imperialism.

Please think through this one carefully before using it.

KANAN MAKIYA'S WAR DIARY

March 24



Only at TNR Online

Post date: 03.24.03

Previous Entries

The bombs have begun to fall on Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers have shot their officers and are giving themselves up to the Americans and the British in droves. Others, as in Nasiriyah and Umm Qasr, are fighting back, and civilians have already come under fire. Yet I find myself dismissing contemptuously all the e-mails and phone calls I get from antiwar friends who think they are commiserating with me because "their" country is bombing "mine." To be sure, I am worried. Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp. One is not supposed to say such things in the kind of liberal, pacifist, and deeply anti-American circles of academia, in which I normally live and work. The truth is jarring even to my own ears.

If you want to understand the perceptual chasm that separates how Iraqis view this second Gulf war from how the rest of the Arab-Muslim world views it--or from how these antiwar elites here in Cambridge or, dare I say, in Turtle Bay or Paris or Berlin view it--then you must begin with the war that has already been waged on the people of Iraq by their own regime. Then you will know, horribly, how the explosion of a JDAM can sound beautiful. For Iraqis, the absence of this new American-led war is not the presence of peace. Years before the first American cruise missile exploded in a "safe house" of the Iraqi leadership, the people of Iraq were living through a war. They have been living through that war since 1980, the year Saddam Hussein launched his futile war against Iran. Since then, one and a half million Iraqis have met a violent death. Between 5 and 10 percent of Iraq's population has been killed, either directly or indirectly, because of decisions made by its own leadership. The scale of such devastation on a people is impossible to imagine. Think of Germany or France after World War I. Think of the Soviet Union after World War II. The peoples that are thrust into such a meat-grinder are never the same when they emerge. Is it any wonder that we Iraqis do not look at this war the way so much of the rest of the world does?

The war rages on around me in the shape of the news broadcasts to which I have become hopelessly addicted. While I watch, my friends in the opposition are gathering in Kurdistan with the Iraqi National Congress and in Kuwait with Jay Garner's office. I should be there with them, but I am told I have to stay. I am needed here, to keep touch with Washington. I cannot stand it. All I have to think about is whether or not the U.S. government is going to once again betray the Iraqi opposition, and renege on commitments made regarding the democratization of Iraq.

There is enough chatter out of Washington to make me apprehensive. Last Wednesday, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Marc Grossman, managed to deliver a long briefing to foreign reporters on "Assisting Iraqis With Their Future, Planning For Democracy" without any specifics on the issue. While Grossman summarized U.S. plans and offered statistical details on economic reconstruction, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian assistance, and the role of the United Nations in all these things, all he could say about the central political question was that the Bush administration "seek[s] an Iraq that is democratic." Unlike its experience in Afghanistan, the administration has had months, if not years, to think about what democracy in Iraq would look like. And yet when the journalists asked Grossman to elaborate on the subject, he could add almost nothing.

Why? Does the United States have any ideas on this pivotal subject? Will the administration push for those ideas in the establishment of the still-ambiguous Iraqi interim authority that Grossman mentioned in his briefing? And what is the role of the leadership of the Iraqi opposition elected in Salahuddin last month? These are the questions I am left here to argue about with American officials while the war's progress provides a more pleasant soundtrack.

March 25, 2003, 9:00 a.m.

Support the Troops?

Not that way.

By Gabriel Ledeen



I recently received an e-mail from the head of a student antiwar group stating that both sides share "one HUGE thing in common: concern for U.S. troops." My immediate reaction was one of acceptance and understanding — of course we all care about our servicemen and women and share a common wish to see them home safely. But the more I thought about it, the less comfortable I was with the notion that my concern for the troops was the same as that of the antiwar demonstrators. I asked myself why I was feeling so insecure about the activist's statement of concern, and finally it dawned on me: It's Kant!

Yes, Immanuel Kant. Kant's moral philosophy prohibits us from treating an individual merely as a means to some end: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." Human beings possess a rational will, and as such have more than a simply conditional worth (as would be valuable in the pursuit of some end). Therefore, persons are to be treated as ends in themselves and never as merely means.

The Left has decided that U.S. troops are the ultimate tool in convincing others that this war is unjust. As the New York Times's Bob Herbert wrote in the latest of his intellectually stunted op-eds, "I think the men and women moving militarily against Saddam are among the few truly brave and even noble individuals left in our society. They have volunteered for the dangerous duty of defending the rest of us. But I also believe they are being put unnecessarily in harm's way."

As I stated in my reply to the student activist, "I find it disingenuous of you to claim that you support our troops now, when it is politically convenient to do so. Groups with which you identify have been railing against the military for years and years, idolizing those who burned down ROTC facilities. They spat on returning veterans in the '60s and early '70s. They have been protesting against the 'homophobic' and 'sexist' practices of the military, banning recruiters from career fairs all over the country, closing down ROTC units at Ivy League and other universities, campaigning against tax breaks for military families and against an increase in the shamefully low military salaries. It is convenient now to present your arguments within the framework of a pro-military view, since nobody would listen to you otherwise. However, to say that we share a common concern for the men and women serving our country is a false statement, and one that is quite unwelcome. While your concern for the troops is born of political strategy and desperation, I worry for my friends and comrades who are put in harm's way to accomplish a mission. These men and women are heroes, and they deserve to be treated as such — not as pawns in a political chess game."

If there are still any who remain unsure about where Democratic leaders stand on the issue of support for our troops, just look at House Resolution 104, entitled "Expressing the Support and Appreciation of the Nation for the President and the Members of the Armed Forces Who are Participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Eleven Democratic representatives voted against the resolution, and 21 voted "present," signaling their unwillingness to even enter the arena.

This isn't about the troops at any serious level of the political game; it's about the rabid hatred of the president and opposition to his every move, based on a concern for their own political future. But this view is decidedly unpopular — as the Dixie Chicks recently discovered — and so the Left must turn to a neutral and common belief (such as concern for the well-being of American soldiers) to remain politically relevant. It costs them nothing; but for our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and coworkers engaged in war, there is no room for such disingenuousness. For the Left to use our troops in an attempt to regain political ground is a betrayal of their service, and those who oppose the war should be confronted for their treachery.

— Gabriel Ledeen is an undergraduate at Rice University and an officer candidate in the United States Marine Corps.

yeah yeah.

its also politically convenient for fucking dumb americans to label saddam as a tyrant even after they supported him during his most tyrannical years. fucking americans as well as saddam are responsible for the deaths so many innocent.

fucking dumb americans

The Leftist in SF plan on confronting this Rally, if they do I hope they get a rude welcome!

Notice how much of a coward I am, as I never disclose what country I'M from.

Uh, who cares?

And all those Queer Nigger CapitaIists get blown up.