ON SEPT. 29, a few thousand individuals trekked to Washington, D.C. to protest, well - something. Originally, the self-described bunch of anarchists and peace demonstrators (one would hope the irony was not lost on them) wanted to protest the policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Instead, due to the events of Sept. 11, the group had to find another reason to burn an American flag. To that end, it decided to protest an old favorite: war.
Although the United States has yet to declare war formally against any nation or group, President Bush and Congress have been unified in their desire to start a concerted and consistent offensive against terrorism. Specifically, the United States intends to attack and destroy terrorist cells and to attack nations that support those terrorist organizations. It is that intended use of force that the D.C. protestors have chosen to reject.
The Washington Post interviewed one of the demonstrators, a Columbia University undergraduate. In decrying war, the student stated, "I don't think the solution to violence is more violence." The student then proceeded to utter perhaps one of the most self-serving and banal statements issued to this point: "It's a very patriotic thing to be an activist" ("Thousands Fill Streets Of D.C. to Protest War," The Washington Post, Sept. 30).
There is no need to criticize Americans simply for having policy-based opinions that are different from the majority of the population. People have the right to believe whatever they wish. However, it should be pointed out when the substance of such opinions is both wrong and traceable to the future deaths of Americans.
Those who espouse a pacifist, peace-at-nearly-any-cost approach are, consciously or not, serving the interests of vile, death-wielding terrorist organization active in the world today.
Superficially, those who espouse a pacifist approach have an appealing claim: The world would be a much more wonderful place if nations and mean people would stop killing one another.
|
Of course, the evil creatures who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11 initiated the violence involving the United States. The groups with which some of them have been linked have been remarkably clear and lucid in their disdain for Western civilization and for Western culture. Osama bin Laden, the most famous leader of such a group, declared war on American civilians in no uncertain terms in 1998: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it" ("Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," World Islamic Front Statement, Feb. 23, 1998).
Amazingly, some individuals have attempted to justify or explain why some terrorists would want to obliterate the Western world. Such alleged excuses include America's "imperialistic" ways - possibly resulting in or contributing to certain countries becoming poorer - and America's affinity for Israel. Putting aside the factual inaccuracy of the former and the anti-Semitism of the latter, for anyone to make American foreign policies a justification for the deaths of over 6,000 truly innocent people is an affront to any notion of common sense.
Like bin Laden, terrorist organizations of all stripes, be they Irish (IRA), American (McVeigh et al), Palestinian (Hamas), or any other nationality, distinguish themselves by consciously attempting to kill innocent civilians. In choosing to attack terrorist organizations and supporting states that threaten America and its allies, the United States has decided that aggressive, continual offensives ultimately will save American lives.
While offensives will not prohibit all future terrorist attacks, they will work to disrupt currently existing organizations and eliminate some of those organizations' leaders. The attacks will save American lives. They are worth pursuing.
The absence of an offensive approach is one that merely seeks to guard against terrorist intrusions. Obviously, this is an impossible goal. It also is morally reprehensible. Citizens who stand idly by when they know their own neighbors may become future victims of state-sponsored terror commit the same acts of complicit endorsement Swiss bankers made during World War II. Those who know of a way to disrupt, limit or even stop a senseless attack and actively campaign against such an action, become tied to those who carry out the act itself.
Those who decry the future use of force by the United States are, by their actions, allowing their fellow citizens to be subjected to future attacks. They are making this country a weaker, more dangerous place in which to live. It is hardly a patriotic act.
(Seth Wood's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 21 minutes agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
