Channtal Fleischfresser: Speaking up in opposition to war

CNN is now presenting the Bush administration's action in the Middle East under the dramatic headline "Showdown: Iraq."

Unbelievable.

What kind of a "showdown" pits American military prowess against that of a devastated country which, the last time around, capitulated in a matter of weeks? That description would flatter Iraqi military capabilities.

Then again, perhaps it is in the administration's interest to present Iraq as something of a monster. Then, once the United Nations inspectors go in and find the weapons they are looking for, America can legitimately invade its colossal dictatorial adversary in the name of democracy.

As of yet, they haven't found anything concrete. But fear not -- the inspectors reserve the right to escort Iraqi scientists (and their families, of course) out of the country for questioning. Once they are out of the country, there are no laws protecting Iraqi citizens to deal with.

And who gives the U.N. -- or the U.S. military, for that matter -- this right? Certainly not the Iraqi government.

Does this scenario seem the slightest bit hypocritical to anyone? Perhaps the Bush administration is indeed right and virtuous in further decimating Iraq (because U.S. sanctions haven't done that enough already) in the name of freedom, democracy, human rights or even oil. Perhaps the key to destroying the "Axis of Evil" is in fact to bring down Saddam Hussein by killing more innocent Iraqi civilians (whose human rights we're trying to protect, after all) because that clearly worked smashingly 10 years ago. And then, maybe we just want the oil.

I suppose it's also convenient for the administration that the American population as a whole has been fairly receptive to, even supportive of, its proposed action in Iraq. Nor does it hurt that the media has in large part neglected to report on any of the anti-war activity that has been trying to voice at least some opposition to government actions.

So really, it seems as though Bush has the entire country behind his imperialist and decidedly un-democratic ambitions in Iraq. At any rate, that's what the rest of the world must think right now.

This is interesting because in fact, there actually has been plenty of negative sentiment concerning this war and what it represents. The anti-war position is not as unpopular as it seems, but many of those in opposition have not yet voiced their opinions.

Especially as college students, we should be actively questioning the government's policies and not taking what we read or see on television at face value; a lot of it is becoming reminiscent of a word easily applied elsewhere but is something of a taboo around here.

Dare I say it? Propaganda.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a student-organized protest which involved several schools in the Philadelphia area. While Penn was represented, the numbers did not reflect the level of opposition present on our campus. There have also been other initiatives such as teach-ins or sit-ins as alternatives to demonstration.

The point is that those who are opposed to the war need to make themselves heard, and those who haven't yet formulated an opinion on the issue need to learn about it. There are probably people who don't fall into either of these categories, and this seems to speak for the majority of the Penn community.

Right now, the consequences of a war may well be felt closer to home than a few statistics in the paper about Iraqi casualties. At this point, simply talking about being opposed to the war will do nothing, and the assumption that our actions will not be of consequence is the same as accepting the government's decisions. Attending a protest or a teach-in or anything else for that matter won't put a stop to the war; but at least it will let people (in this country and in the rest of the world) know that we are not about to give up our right to our opinions.

In a recent lecture, History Professor Bruce Kuklick stood up and accused a full lecture hall of complacency and inaction regarding the Bush administration's foreign policy. He claimed that our generation's attitude in general is individualistic and career-motivated -- "It's like teaching cattle!" he declared. The worst part of it was that, indignant as we were, we couldn't really argue with him.

Is that how we want our generation to be perceived, as apathetic and self-interested? I think not.

While we should not feel compelled to act beyond our convictions, it is nonetheless important that we make our opinions heard through whatever means we choose.

Channtal Fleischfresser is a junior History major from São Paulo, Brazil.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.