There was a
big anti-war protest in San Francisco today to mark the five year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Aside from snarling traffic and annoying people who were trying to go about their everyday business, I fail to see what the protest, especially here in SF, accomplished. I suppose if spending several hours yelling anti-war slogans at people who mostly agree with you is your idea of a worthy endeavor, then today was a resounding success.
In any case, I've never quite understood the progressive movement's position on the Iraq war. The anti-war movement's entire message seems to be simply "war is bad." Undoubtedly, war is horrible, but just ask
Neville Chamberlain how well the "war is bad" mindset works out. Before the Iraq war started, I read Kanan Makiya's
Republic of Fear, a book that details the crimes of Saddam Hussein's regime. Political executions, gassing of the Kurds, rapes, torture... as the book's title indicates, Iraq before the war was not a happy place to be. So, a question I would love to see an anti-war activist address is this: Is it always wrong to use force to destroy an evil regime or group (regardless of Bush's true motives in the Iraq war)? Is it better to let the Taliban execute women in soccer stadiums? Is it better to allow Hutus to massacre Tutsis (UN troops were only allowed to defend themselves in Rawanda. They couldn't attack Hutus to save defenseless Tutsis)? Is it better to let the janjaweed kill the inhabitants of Darfur?
I also want to give every anti-war activist a copy of Orwell's
The Road to Wigan Pier to help them understand that their goofy hats and pink outfits are actually undermining their cause.
And finally, Makiya--still a good source on the Iraq war--talks about what he
got wrong five years ago.
