It is no secret that Amherst is a liberal place. Most of you have only a handful of conservative friends, and that's just because you are such warm, accepting people. The running joke in conservative circles about our faculty's political bent is that "Amherst is not a two-party school, it's a two-Republican school." The political affiliations of the faculty obviously translate into the present discussion of the war in Iraq. I do not think that the Amherst community is unbalanced when it comes to any public discussion of the war-I know it is. This is not to say that Amherst is not open to opposing views. Indeed, I am known to be a bit of a conservative (of the friendly, compassionate variety, of course) and I am given a voice at this school. It's not that the campus refuses to hear pro-war views, but rather that many students and professors here have dismissed such arguments. It makes dialogue far more difficult when you feel ambushed by left-wing students and professors all at once. These academics do themselves a disservice when they refuse to seriously engage the other side, and they certainly do not foster greater understanding of the issues by either pro- or anti-war students.
What is more troubling to me than the situation at Amherst is that across the nation the anti-war left refuse to entertain the notion that the positive events of the war are refuting the opposition. Rather than reevaluate the anti-war position in light of an effective military campaign with relatively low casualties, the new claim of the left is that they are now persecuted somehow by the right-wing, pro-war establishment. The left's dubious shift from unheard majority to tyrannized minority doesn't surprise me when I look at how it has handled the war thus far.
A chronicle of the leftist, anti-war involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a history of biased accusation and unconstructive criticism. First there were the protests before the war. "We are the world majority" cried the protesters. "We represent all the enlightened nations of this world (especially France, Germany and Russia)." Yet an amazing thing has happened since the self-gratifying marches in cities such as New York, London and Madrid. The war has started, and it is no longer an abstraction. The American people have begun to realize that our allies (except Britain) are fair-weather friends, Saddam is a despicable tyrant and we might just be able to do some good in Iraq while protecting vital U.S. interests. Now the latest figures show that a clear majority of Americans (some data suggests close to 70 percent) approve of operation "Iraqi Freedom." So the protesting, anti-war hordes have now abandoned the "we are the enlightened world" approach and replaced it with criticism of the war itself.
The first week of the war gave a lot of insight into the agenda of anti-war media and academia. "This is another Vietnam" cried the left, seven days into operation "Iraqi Freedom." Journalists, professors, and some Democrats immediately jumped on the opportunity to criticize Don Rumsfeld and his strategy of a faster, lighter invasion force. The word "quagmire" became the most abused word in the English language. There was more resistance than expected in Shiite-controlled southern Iraq, and protesters dusted off their placards once again to protest an "unjust, illegal, immoral war." Of course soon after this brief interlude, U.S. forces resumed the assault and at present they have surrounded Baghdad. The war, as wars go, has been tremendously successful, and now the U.N. wants to play a large role in the reconstruction of the Iraqi state, with Russia, France and Germany all vying for position in post-war Iraq. So it looks like a possibility that we will be able to ensure our security, free the Iraqi people from tyranny, protect our oil interests and rebuild relations with contrite NATO allies without mass slaughter of innocents, increased terrorism or extensive U.S. casualties. Hooray for us.
As for how this will all play out on our fair campus, I just hope we begin to see a little more balance and understanding between opposing ideologies. Any shift from anti-war to pro-U.S. policy in Iraq is a natural reaction to the lop-sided, leftist-dominated discussion of the issue on this campus for years. Whether you are a hawk, a dove or something in between, challenge yourselves and your professors and peers to tackle the reasons for and against this war. It is every bit as ridiculous to claim that we are in Iraq only to save the Iraqis as it is to claim that this war is about "blood for oil." There are legitimate reasons to oppose this war and equally compelling reasons to support it. There is a balance somewhere, and although this college community hasn't found it, I'm sure if we keep trying we'll come up with something better than what we've seen so far.