Protests undermine peaceful solutions

With the recent events in the Middle East quickly spiraling towards war, many Americans and citizens of other nations have taken to protesting in the name of peace. "No War in Iraq," "No Blood for Oil," "Peace: True American Patriotism," and "Give Peace a Chance," are just a few of the catchy slogans that peace protestors make into signs, T-shirts, and buttons. Everyone, it seems, agrees that a peaceful solution would be ideal in this situation. Indeed, I continually hope that Saddam Hussein will agree to destroy his prohibited weapons and step down as the leader of Iraq. With family members and friends in the military, I am both scared and saddened by the thought of war. Yet, the actions of peace protestors, in my view, have done nothing to further the cause of peace; if anything, their actions have actually made a peaceful solution less likely.

I take issue with the underlying message of peace protests. All too often, they put the burden on the United States to refrain from attacking Iraq, while seeming to ignore the circumstances that have brought our country to this undesirable crossroads. For 12 years, the United States and the U.N. have issued declarations that both condemned and forbade Saddam Hussein from increasing his armaments. Furthermore, the United Nations demanded that he allow weapons inspectors to have unrestricted access to his sites, yet he has disobeyed every U.N. declaration thus far. In so doing, he has destabilized a vital region of the world and threatened the security of his neighbors. He is a dishonest, evil tyrant who has no regard for human life other than his own, as the mass murders of his own people make hauntingly clear. The prospect of peace is predicated upon the behavior of Saddam Hussein: if he disarms and comes into compliance, there will be peace. But the choice lies alone in his hands.

Despite the insidious actions of a wholly evil man, the focus of peace protestors is on the actions of the United States. The brand of peace they seem to endorse is "peace at all costs," because in their demonstrations, they have never outlined conditions under which war would be acceptable. Simply put, however, peace cannot come at all costs. Rather than advocating an indefensible pacifist position, it would be much more beneficial to the cause of peace if protestors pointed their message towards Saddam himself. "Disarm Now" and "Step Down" should be their call for peace, because the defiant actions of this tyrant brought us to the current state of affairs. Their current message, pointed at the United States and our allies, has only served to strengthen Saddam's resolve by showing him that the United States and the world are not united under the cause of war. This division in public opinion has encouraged Saddam to continue with his misdeeds, as he believes world leaders cannot act with force and retain popular domestic support. Rather than give confidence to him, peace protestors should place the burden on him to come into compliance with decade-old U.N. declarations. Unless, that is, they want Saddam to retain his weapons of mass destruction, while the U.S. and our allies idly stand back.

Without nations like the U.S. and our allies actively enforcing international declarations and policing the world's evil tyrants, rogue leaders would run rampant in their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and they would do so with impunity from the world community. This is a far worse scenario than the one in which we currently live, and in my view, the United States deserves much credit for helping to make the world a safer place for people of all nations, races, and ethnicities. Why, then, do peace protestors attack the United States as breaking the world peace? Why do they paint the United States as the "bad guy," the aggressor nation, when, in this situation, the U.S. is simply attempting to do what many other nations have been unwilling to do: add resolve to the international declarations that Saddam Hussein has continually broken for 12 years? How much longer would they have America and our allies wait before "enough is enough"? Are peace protestors truly willing to allow Saddam Hussein to continue down the path of deception, militarization, and global instability? If that is not what they want — and I truly hope it isn't, since that would surely undermine future chances for peace — then they would be well-advised to change the focus of their message.

John Kabealo is a politics major from Dublin, Ohio.