This weekend, Students for a Peaceful Response (SPR) sent letters to all of us asking that we walk out of classes and protest American actions upon first word of military strikes. Just what kind of military action was unimportant, though many pacifists seem to have assumed, like the Valley Advocate's cartoonist did, that Bush is planning an "all-out holy war" against the Afghan people themselves.
SPR wrote that its major goal is "seeking and promoting peaceful alternatives to war," without offering a single such alternative. Diplomacy has been tried and failed in this conflict. The Taliban has repeatedly refused to hand over terrorist Osama bin Laden, despite the many American and Pakistani efforts to avert conflict by having him handed over peacefully.
bin Laden is responsible not only for thousands of deaths in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, but also for hundreds more in the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and two US embassies in Africa in years before. There is no reason to think that if we don't stop him, he will stop of his own accord. Contrary to what the SPR claims, his actions were an act of war. By providing bin Laden safe haven and not giving him or his location up, the Taliban is an accomplice in his war on innocents.
To be sure, our conflict is not with the Afghan people or with the Muslim world in general, and Bush has gone to great lengths to make that point abundantly clear. "The United States respects the people of Afghanistan," he told the Joint Session of Congress. "We respect your faith … Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah." Despite repeated statements like these, and gestures like Bush's visit to a mosque soon after the attacks, many protesters have implied that any military attack would be racially motivated.
Even if they have not won over the protesters, Bush's actions to date have won him the support of not only the entire Western world but also of Russia and virtually all Muslim nations. In a dramatic reverse from the first months of his presidency, which were marked by a new isolationism, Bush has created probably the most global coalition ever assembled. A few days ago, the United States won unanimous support for a United Nations Security Council resolution requiring all countries to deny safe haven to anyone financing or committing a terrorist act and criminalizing the financing of such attacks.
To maintain the integrity of the coalition, and for clear moral reasons, our military must try its hardest to avoid civilian casualties. We have been given all signs that that will be done. New reports suggest that any bombing of Taliban military installations would coincide with air drops of aid to the Afghan people and leaflets explaining our actions. Already, we are Afghanistan's biggest aid donor, and we have greatly increased those efforts, especially in the form of assistance to refugees, since the terrorist attacks.
In conversations I've had, anti-war protesters cannot find fault with any of the major moves Bush has made so far: the clear messages of support for all Muslims and Arab-Americans, the lack of an immediate military response based on revenge rather than strategy and ensuring the support of virtually the entire world community in a war against terrorism.
So why are people protesting? I'm sure that most simply have a commitment to peace, even if they cannot offer clear alternatives to the administration's response so far. We all want peace, but this war was not brought on by us. While I don't think the protesters' criticisms have been constructive, I don't deny that they have every right to express them. What bothers me most are those in the activist movement who I believe have less noble secondary causes.
Chief among these background reasons for protest has been a virulent dislike of President Bush. This sentiment was perhaps best articulated by a speaker at the rallies in D.C. this weekend (originally planned as anti-globalization rallies, but easily transformed into anti-"racist war" rallies): we should protest any war, she told a crowd, because Bush's programs "are anti-woman and anti-gay." In Valentine conversations, I've seen people more angered by the fact that Bush's approval rating is now at 90 percent (CNN polls) than by the prospect of war. While I do not attribute such attitudes to the majority of the activists, I do find it discouraging that so many seem to be guided by partisanship in a time that requires great unity.
Finally, intolerance-the problem that ironically plagues liberal activism-has shown its ugly head again. If you don't go to the peace rally, one prominent campus activist purportedly told a friend, then "you must be for bombing brown people." The uniting spirit of the candlelight vigil soon after the attacks was broken by a speaker who tearfully thanked all those "who agreed with me" when she wrote a letter of protest to President Bush and told the crowd about how personally hurtful it was to her when people did not accept her opinion. While nationally, those who oppose any military action make up only a single-digit percentage of the population (CNN polls), they are much more numerous and vocal here at Amherst. There is no inherent problem in that alarming disparity unless those activists (and this is true for a whole slew of controversial political issues) become entirely intolerant of another view and consider you morally bankrupt if you hold one.
Before you walk out of classes when soldiers our age set off to protect us from another World Trade Center bombing, consider exactly what action has been taken and how responsible and well-thought out the process that led up to it has been. Here, I agree with the remarks that President Clinton made last Saturday, upon establishing a new scholarship fund with Bob Dole for victim's families: "I think I can speak for all Americans in saying I have been very impressed by the fact that [the administration] didn't go off and try to get vengeance and carelessly cost a lot of lives from people who can't help the fact that they're trapped in Afghanistan. America has acted like anything but a warmonger in this. We're just trying to do the right thing long-term against a very serious threat."