Chekhov’s Mistess

How Many Roads Must A Man Walk Down?

A year ago, my wife and I went to the rally in New York City to voice our opposition to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. It was a moving experience, both emotionally and physically. Standing together in freezing cold weather, we had all come to collectively shout out that we believed our government was belligerently dragging the world down a bloody side street and this would not happen without our speaking up. The crowd was a broad mixture of New Yorkers and those that came by bus from far away; there were many races, ages and even all the economic social strata were represented, as far as I could tell. To see children with their parents, others who could be grandparents and so many who probably have never experienced such a demonstration of consciousness was what I found so electrifying. It was like being a drummer at the center of a really awesome marching band.

 

Before the march, I spent a lot of time thinking about the war and whether or not I would go and protest. I was only on the fence because I knew that a lot of people there would represent views radically different than mine, and indeed, there were. I decided to go because I felt that collectively, despite the presence of prosumer protestors, anarchists and other disparate groups, we were ultimately sending a unified message that the war was wrong. I also went because I believed that even one death for the wrong purpose was too many, and I could not stand by without saying something.

The experience has stayed with me, and I’m sure the same is true for most that were there. Many too have been vindicated in their own purposes for being among the vocal minority as the Bush administration’s stated purpose for the invasion has failed to materialize. However, I believe that the Bush administration, despite a nasty public relations problem, has been quite successful so far. We must not forget that one of the major purposes of the Iraq invasion was probably (for I can’t read minds, particularly not such narrow ones) to establish a legal precedent for Bush’s “Doctrine of First Strike.” This rather subtle change to international law would allow the U.S. to take military action against another country for merely suspecting that they will take action against us. Many feel that this is completely justified in the age of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” when there is potentially no ability to take defensive measures against an aggressor. That is why it is only important for the Bush administration to justify their actions by saying that they were based upon available intelligence. But I think the doctrine pushes the world into an era when brute force becomes the only bargaining chip, and we are, as a result, no better than tribal warlords, all looking to find better ways to kill one another.

Having said this, I was not at the anti-war march yesterday. This is mostly due to personal circumstances, but also because I believe that now that we are in Iraq, as wrong and costly in terms of human life that may be, it would be far worse for the region if we were to pull out. Foreign policy can’t always be made on strictly moral grounds. Unfortunately, I believe that completely withdrawing our forces now would leave an Afghanistan type country that could easily fall apart and that somehow we need to try and unite to make Iraq a peaceful and prosperous country. I acknowledge of course that that is far far easier said than done. Even though we have performed heart surgery on a cancer patient, we can’t just sit and let him die to make up for our original mistake.

comments

No Comments Next entry: The Origins of April’s Fool Day
Previous entry: I’m a Brie!

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: March 21, 2004
• Filed Under:
  Dismal/Dismaler: Econ/Politics

• Comments:0
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -