Editorial

Response to Iraq

The issue with Iraq is not black and white. Yet when the Bush administration says words like “axis of evil,” “sudden terror” and “freedom,” everyone grabs their guns, counts their children and is ready to fight the “enemy.” In the same respect, opponents of the Bush policy must not be so simple with broad declarations of “No war,” or jokes about the President’s low GPA at Yale.
The language of foreign relations and public policy must not be so simple or stratified. For the most part, Oberlin College’s curriculum fights this simplicity. If classes were simple, midterms would not be stressful. In each department, from Environmental Studies to art, students think to comprhend the complexities in front of them. This detailed thought must be extended to analysis and action regarding Iraq and beyond.
One should not simply agree or disagree with the words of President Bush, but should wrestle with them to the point of deep scars and cuts. Being heard, and mobilizing support for a view does not negate the need for analysis. No matter how vocal, a process without analysis will fail.
The bush administration though has mobilized congress, which has passed Authorization for Military Force Against Iraq. The simple statements of the determined White House were convincing in the absence of a vocal and analytical left, which is still too busy declaring Bush an illegitimate President. This must stop.
Oberlin can be a leader in a complex and analytical opposition. It can leave the language and beliefs of absolutes behind. To be effective , Oberlin must discard its preaching to the choir and superficial liberal commraderie. Rather than shouting “NO WARS” students must take the time to understand the issue and then lead the shouts that:

--Hundreds if not thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will die, no matter how precise our bombing campaign.

--That according to a letter dated Oct. 7 from director of central intelligence George J. Tenet to Senator Bob Graham, Saddam Hussein would be much more likely to use weapons of mass destruction if felt thretened by a U.S. –led attack.

--The possible introduction of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, America can no longer rely on the single-digit mortality rates it has incurred in its recent wars.

Student Military Compromise

The military holds America’s quiet fighters, people whose personal politics and religious views get put aside once the uniforms representing the Marines, Navy, Army and Air Force are put on, and their bodies and actions become United States Government property and responsibility. The question for the Oberlin community becomes: could a protesting Oberlin student believe that there is activism in being a member of the United States military? The military consists of the people who protect protestors’ amendments, and can be characterized as having a unique form of protestation that often leaves them torn between obedience and individual thought.
Furthermore, Obies should realize that there are also college students around the nation who are active members of the military. They sit beside you in class learning and articulating their personal views of the world, striving to educate themselves, preparing to make the world a better place.
Students must be aware that the military has a humanitarian side. Many jobs focus on aiding other countries in training the military and providing food or security. A student who joins the armed forces to aid others outside of America differs marginally from the student who chooses to leave the country to join the fight against AIDS.
Perhaps members of the armed forces do not have the luxury of using funds or extra time to protest so they choose a career that can guarantee a source of income, world travel and a sense of nationalism.
Most importantly we must keep in mind that when soldiers go to war and are in the midst of combat, they are not only fighting for the security of a nation they are fighting for the life of the person fighting right along side them, struggling to make it home alive.