Editor’s opinion

It’s possible that the nation will be at war with Iraq by the time this column appears. Whether or not this happens, it’s safe to say that protests in the streets – mainly in large cities – will persist.

There’s a strange but familiar polarization occurring in these tense days. Polls indicate public support in America for the Bush administration’s policy of enforcing United Nations disarmament resolutions through threat – and potential use – of military force. However, the bulk of news coverage continues to concern organized protests – not protests of the brutal regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (those types of protests aren’t allowed in the streets of Iraq, although if they were, they would abound); no, these are protests of the Bush administration and its doctrine that weapons of mass destruction in Iraqi hands justify an invasion to force U.N.-sanctioned disarmament.

Protesters against war, in any era, always tread a fine line between opposing a political agenda and undercutting the U.S. military that needs and deserves the moral support of the people it protects. However, it’s sad to say that in the days leading up to this conflict, protesters have allowed their worst adherents to define their image. Today’s anti-war movement has become a movement of illogical slogans and slurs against our military forces rather than an expression of a coherent rationale for making continued U.N. inspections our policy regarding Iraq.

At the outset, I should concede that I don’t buy President Bush’s arguments for attacking Iraq. I (and I imagine many Americans) would be delightfully surprised if the U.S. military suddenly turned away from Iraq’s borders – for the time being, anyway, until a coalition could be assembled to deal with Hussein – and our troops instead launched a secretly planned invasion to destroy Al Qaeda. Imagine the sensation if our troops drove instead through Saudi Arabia for a sudden, full-scale regime change there. Soldiers could shut down the madrases. U.N. officials could install a truly democratic government. Most importantly, our troops could act on secretly held intelligence and root out Al Qaeda sympathizers once and for all, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. Americans could watch grimly but with satisfaction as our special forces dragged terrorist ringleader bin Laden by his heels out of his homeland. Then, we could deal definitively with the Saudi government, a turncoat ally better known as a haven for anti-American terrorists. Surprise, Saudi Arabia! The Iraqi objective was a smokescreen.

OK, so I’m dreaming. Only in the movies would a scenario like this play out. The likely scenario is a military invasion of Iraq, swift, overwhelming and (we pray) brief.

Hussein – not bin Laden – is poised to experience the justice of America and its allies. So how should war protesters deal with this reality? Bear in mind that the Iraqi people will rejoice at liberation from their tyrant and his notoriously brutal sons. American troops also would love to avenge the Iraqi regime’s torture of U.S. servicemen and imprisonment of one of our airman who was lost in action during the 1991 Gulf war and presumably still languishes in an Iraqi prison.

The deck is stacked against anti-war activists. There’s too much just cause and high emotion for removing the Hussein regime, even if the official pretext of disarmament to avert an imminent threat is questionable. So, protesters, listen up. If you want to make a credible case against the Bush policy, you need to lose the ridiculous slogans that splash across our television sets and appear in the pages of our newspapers on a daily basis. “No blood for oil” is one of the most absurd protest cliches I’ve seen. If we wanted cheaper and more available oil, our government would follow the lead of the French government and appease Hussein. We wouldn’t corner him, sparking a likely repeat of Desert Storm’s aftermath when the dictator torched oil fields and caused an environmental disaster.

Another placard troubled me even more than the “No blood for oil” slogan. In the Feb. 18 Oregonian, a newspaper photograph of an open house attended by senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden in Bend featured a sign, plainly in view, that reads: “War is just terrorism with a bigger budget.” Wait a minute. The implication of this anti-war message, proudly paraded for the camera, is that our military forces are no better than terrorists, they just operate on a larger scale. Sorry, folks, but you just crossed the line, big time. Our military, unlike forces in countries such as Iraq, does not consist of a rogue force of killers who target civilians. They are our best and brightest, charged with the unenviable and thankless duty of defending Americans and American interests.

So, war protesters, you need to rethink the messages you are sending. Otherwise, I’d predict that the anti-war movement will defeat its own cause and spark a backlash. My advice to protesters: I think many of your positions are legitimate, but you’re allowing radicals and anti-Bush militants to define your message. You’d better tell these agitators in your ranks to grow up or shut up. They’re crippling your cause. And if I see any more attacks against our military, I’m switching camps altogether. I don’t want to be associated with you.

Anyone with comments about “Editor’s Opinion” can contact David Carkhuff by calling 575-0710 or by e-mail at editor@bluemountaineagle.com.