I’ve faced a few issues in which I’ve wanted to take a side and then come up with the logic later. The war on Iraq debate is one of those. I’d love to be convinced that there’s a better way than the use of force to solve this one. I’m begging for the logic, but so far, it’s been hard to find. I’m not the only one. Dean Peters sent me this link:
Unfortunately, as Evan Coyne Maloney’s protester-interview video demonstrates, most “anti-war” protesters seem far more anti-Bush, or anti-America, than they seem anti-war. Pictures like these, showing Bush as Hitler, etc., tend to underscore that impression. It’s no wonder that commentators as different as Lee Harris and Nick Cohen find the “anti-war” movement unserious: long on criticisms and moralizing, but short on realism and solutions, and fundamentally incoherent.
Don’t miss watching the video he mentions. I’m sure many of the anti-war protestors have something good to say. There are too many that I respect for me to believe there’s nothing there. But there are a lot of people you’re not convincing, and it’s not because we don’t want to be convinced. I know I do. But your statements have to be more than just criticisms of the U.S., blanket statements of opinion (e.g. “war is always wrong”), and insults against those who disagree. Please make your case, or point me to where it’s already been made convincingly. I want to believe. Update: I respect pacifists like John O’Keefe, even if I don’t agree with them. At least they’re consistent, and they have a position that can be argued and defended. I’m also not as frustrated with those who are defending the U.S./U.N. positions, because, like it or not, they have a position that can be defended, even if you don’t agree with them. What’s frustrating to me is that I’ve been unable to find a good non-pacifist anti-war position beyond, “The U.S. is evil” (okay, different topic, and besides, isn’t Saddam?) or “Why should I explain myself to you? It’s obvious.” That doesn’t cut it. Especially confusing are those who argue against war because Jesus is the Prince of Peace, but then advocate sending in an elite group of U.N. soldiers to extract Saddam Hussein. At that point you’re not anti-war; you’re just debating strategy. I’m sure a good defense of the non-pacifist, anti-war position is out there. If you’ve found it, please let me know.