To: stockman_scott who wrote (67851 ) 1/22/2003 10:31:29 PM From: bela_ghoulashi Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 Empty protest Vocal foes of war with Iraq need to offer more than just walking away Jan. 22, 2003 Each day, security guards for Saddam Hussein sit on the dining room chairs upon which the Iraqi leader will take his evening meal. They are checking for booby traps, literally putting their keisters on the line for the Butcher of Baghdad. Many tens of thousands of Americans spent the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend marching and protesting against this nation's buildup toward war against Saddam. While it may be - as many of their placards proclaimed - that "war is not the answer," preparation for it serves some good purpose. At least it makes Saddam's miserable existence noticeably more tortured. Protest and organized objection is a long-standing national tradition, a point noted by many of the protesters themselves, who gathered over the weekend in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and other cities, including Phoenix. To the extent that their views need airing, that their objections and concerns about violent intercession in Iraq need stating, such demonstrations of diverse opinion need to occur. Americans need to know where each of us stands. That said, the protesters, the anti-warriors, need to answer real questions. They need to extend their examination beyond mere antipathy toward a president, and beyond moral pontification. If President Bush must demonstrate a clear national interest in his vigorous pursuit of war, his increasingly vocal opponents also must clearly state a compelling reason why we should not. Saddam, who has wasted the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in two wars of aggression, has spent the wealth of his nation pursuing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones. If he fails to demonstrate indisputably that he no longer has them, and if the United States fails to insist that he meet that simple test, what then? Is there any good reason to believe he will not find another enemy to use them against? Is there any good reason to believe he won't try his utmost to use them against that most detested enemy of all, the United States? Or against its long-standing Middle Eastern ally, Israel? As the song of the protesters insists, peace is the answer. But simply walking away from Saddam's repeated violations of U.N. resolutions is not the same as peace. Small wonder Saddam sleeps in a different place every night and scurries among his palaces through bomb-hardened tunnels. He has butchered his own people by the thousands; he has gassed and tortured them; he has crushed even the remotest notions of human rights in Iraq. With or without an American-led incursion, there is no peace in Iraq. How can protesters, who claim to value basic human rights for all people, square that perspective with their opposition to ousting Saddam? A basic theme of Monday's protests is that there should be no war that the United Nations does not validate. But assuming that international stamp of approval comes, what then? Assuming France's stated skepticism about war actually represents little more than the sort of realpolitick chess-playing that has dominated French international politics since World War II, what then? If France, Germany and China find anti-Saddam religion, do American war protesters find it, too? There are sound reasons for objecting to a war against Saddam. But those reasons need more fleshing out than a protest placard will allow. arizonarepublic.com