Peace activists should not gloat

Since the start of the war in Iraq, the U.S. led coalition forces have advanced on Baghdad at a speed unparalleled in military history. Using a new generation of high-technology weaponry, our military has vitally damaged Saddam Hussein's destructive capabilities while minimizing civilian dangers. The people of Iraq are safeguarded from our advances to a degree never before afforded a people whose country is under attack.

Despite such a historic display of force, amazingly combined with a noble restraint of that same force, media reports of Iraqi resistance have caused some skeptics to begin to doubt the success of the war effort. Many of these skeptics are the same people who have stood in opposition of the war since before its inception. I have been disturbed to notice that in some conversations, their tone runs dangerously close to an "I told you so" attitude. More surprisingly, some appear to display a small delight in what they perceive as failures in the war effort, as such "failures" might be used as political leverage against the leaders who initiated this war. Such a view of the recent events is utterly disgraceful, and those who have adopted this attitude shame not only themselves, but also those who are more principled in their oppositions to the war.

First, I must say that there is only one failure in this effort: That Saddam Hussein would not comply with diplomatic efforts, and forced us into this course of action. The failure was diplomatic, yet I do not believe that diplomacy would have ever worked on a ruler like Saddam, whose past actions show that he understands only violence. Militarily, our troops have met opposition, but in meeting this resistance, by all accounts, they have performed superbly. That this operation has not already concluded is no indication of deficient performance by our military. It is ludicrous that critics, who predicted a swifter victory, would use their own faulty forecasts to criticize the Bush administration or the military.

Second, those who have smugly taken delight in what they perceive as military failures should remind themselves of what these so-called "failures" would entail: unnecessary deaths of our friends and family members, a destabilized Iraq that remains under a brutal dictator's control, and the continued oppression and murder of the Iraqi people. This situation would guarantee more deaths at Saddam's hands, far more than our military campaign will ever produce. In matters as grave as these, Americans must pray that our troops experience success at every opportunity.

While some may have opposed this war at the outset, the harsh reality is that we are now at war. Though it is perfectly acceptable in America to oppose this war, that opposition should never take form in either hoping for, or taking pleasure in, any difficulties faced by our troops. We must support our military, even if some disagree with the choices of our leaders. To search or hope for vindication of an earlier held viewpoint emphasizing the failure of resorting to a military campaign now that the war has begun is a position that most Americans would find repugnant and absurd. To those who have acted in such ways, I ask: In the greater scheme of things, isn't it more appealing to win this war, disarm Iraq, and oust Saddam Hussein, even if that means you are forced to endure the reality that perhaps, in this instance, "hawks" are proven right? Furthermore, does who was right really matter, as long as we can help to bring about the end of a destructive regime, and the beginning of one that will enable Iraq to make a positive contribution to a vital region of the world? Even peace protesters themselves supported that hope from the beginning.

John Kabealo '03 is a politics major from Dublin, Ohio.