Why I oppose the war, and why I protest

[theapportioner]

One may think these two statements are equivalent, or that the latter follows from the former. It's a bit more nuanced than that, however.

I shall begin by cursorily introducing the supporters' arguments, which can be generalized into two themes: the moral argument and the pragmatic argument. The latter says that we should go into Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction that can potentially harm us. The evidence presented thus far is circumstantial at best, and nonexistent at worst. An impoverished rationale for war. The moral argument says that 1) Saddam supports Islamist terrorism and that 2) we'd be freeing Iraqis from destitution and totalitarian rule, and introducing them to freedom and democracy, Americanizing them essentially. The first point is toss. The second point is the most legitimate of any of the pro-war arguments.

This second point to the moral argument is utilitarian -- do what brings the greatest good for the greatest number, while not doing more harm than good. While civilian deaths (sterilely objectified as 'collateral damage'), the doctrine of pre-emptive attack, the breakdown in international relations, and inflaming the Islamist movement can reasonably be described as harm, it would be very nice if millions of Iraqis could eat, be educated, live peacefully in a dynamic society, etc. However, given the deplorable recent history of American foriegn relations (history is crucially important, and something that Americans all-too-easily ignores and forgets -- see the Edward Said piece) specifically in the area of 'regime change' and 'nation building', the best we can reasonably hope for is another Nicaragua; the worst, another Iran.

The utilitarian argument necessarily must include a reasonable assessment of what will become of postwar Iraq. Unintended consequences are, obviously, impossible to predict, but we can say something about the probable effort America will put into the rebuilding of Iraq. What is needed (and I will perhaps go into this some other time) is far beyond the scope of the current administration -- that is to say, contracting out projects to Haliburton and others is merely the tip of the iceberg. If the best we can hope for Iraq is Nicaragua, then what was the point of all this? This is why I cannot support war.

(Other arguments made by the anti-war camp are legitimate concerns, but the above point is the deal clincher for me.)

Point two: why I protest. Contrary to what you may think, I don't do this necessarily because I do not support the war, and think George Bush is a rhesus monkey, though both are in play. Rather, I regard protesting as the exercising of our right to dissent, something that until the past few months has been sorely lacking post-September 11. A healthy self-cricitism, like scientific peer review, helps the nation. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the viewpoints professed, debate is healthy -- if you ignore debate your viewpoints degenerate to shit. But more than that, you have to listen to the debate. This exercise has been lacking in our nation's discourse -- just look at the ridiculous farce that passes for mainstream journalism these days. After Sept 11 the nation's (and I don't mean the government's necessarily, but our government's too) system of checks and balances broke down (though it was pretty bad pre-Sept 11th). To protest is to help right the ship.