A student anti-war activist said to me recently, "You have to justify war, not peace." Unfortunately, the situation we find ourselves in now renders her statement na‹ve at best. You have to justify war, and you have to justify "peace" because cherished values -- and countless lives -- are plainly at risk whichever road is taken. Seven hundred words are insufficient to do justice to the arguments for either action or inaction vis-a-vis war with Iraq. It is, however, enough space to say that the arguments for inaction presented to this campus by Penn for Peace have failed to elevate discourse, as they should. Too many of the arguments are "loaded," replete with half-truths and often times, are simply misleading (making this organization as guilty as those they accuse in the media and government of propagandizing). This failure to rely on an appeal to reason, to trust in the ability of Penn students to make sound, objective judgments based on the relevant facts, alienates people who have struggled with the issues. On a Penn for Peace flyer entitled "War on Iraq?" the organization laid out six "reasons" why the war "would expose much hypocrisy and prove to be a horrible idea." The point made under the header "Politics" states that Bush's "true motivation involves carefully planned timing" for political reasons. I would like Penn for Peace to tell American soldiers that they have to wear their heavy NBC Suits (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) into combat in any season but the Iraqi winter. Temperatures in central Iraq routinely climb to over 120 degrees in the summer months. The "cool season" runs from November through March. The same considerations dictated the timing of the Gulf War in 1991. I am a liberal and far from a political supporter of President Bush, but I can remain deeply skeptical of ad hominem "election strategy" arguments so obviously intended to distract one from issues of substance. Under the title of "Money," Penn for Peace attempted to tie the war with Iraq to oil, emphasizing Vice President Dick Cheney's past business transactions when he was in the private sector, stating that "he engaged in over $23 million in business with none other than Saddam Hussein." That's fascinating -- really, it is -- but again, the truth is that this has little to say about whether a war with Iraq will prevent greater loss of life and promote a more peaceful world in the long term. Even more telling is that this is one of few "facts" on the flyer in bold face type, overshadowing more substantive and well-founded arguments that might not play to emotions but instead, foster rational thought. There is no shortage of serious issues to consider. Can "containment" based on imperfect inspections and sanctions work effectively to mitigate the threat of Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction? Will a war in Iraq further or impede the war on terrorism? What is the likely cost of a war in the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians? Can we "nation-build" in such a way as to replace Saddam's brutal regime with something better for the Iraqi people, perhaps even providing a democratic model for a Middle East currently dominated by dictators and autocrats? As American citizens and as Penn students, we owe it to ourselves to confront these issues head-on and to avoid an easy way out. To those organizations like Fox Leadership Program and Penn Faculty and Staff Against the War, which have promoted forums in which both sides have been invited to express their views in an attempt at an open-minded setting: Thank you. To those who have realized that this is a serious and complex issue and that both action and inaction have potentially dangerous and deadly consequences: Thank you. To those who have repeatedly disseminated information that is misleading and designed to appeal to our emotions rather than our capacity for reason: You are doing an injustice to the quality of debate on this campus and to your cause.
Matt Klapper is a sophomore Diplomatic History and International Politics major.
