Liberal Agenda
by Anna Schwartz

Peace is the antithesis of war. Peace is what we liberals claim to want at our anti-war rallies, in our op-ed pieces and in heated discussions conducted over low fat, no foam cappuccinos. But will peace be the result of not going to war? If our reasoning is humanitarian, we should consider that the Iraqi people will be left with a brutal dictator and our own people will remain in danger of those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam is so craftily hiding.

We must question what it is we want out of our protest against the war. Are we making our voices heard? Exercising our rights of free speech? Demonstrating our dissent? Is our objection moral or political? What is the liberal agenda?

Anarchists, environmentalists, Naderites, socialists, and good ol’ hard-line democrats all converged in New York (and other major cities) last weekend in hordes to protest the war. Most of these interest groups seem to oppose the war in principle and the Bush administration’s tactics in practice. Almost every protester held a sign depicting Bush, Powell and Cheney as the “Asses of Evil,” or other slurs toward the administration. These different interest groups agree on little else than a common contempt for Bush and the Republicans. This divergence of interests, even amongst the Democrats, who are the institutional manifestation of anti-war sentiment (I mean real Democrats, not Joe Lieberman), causes deficiency in the anti-war agenda.

The liberals offer no alternative to war aside from waiting around with the French for Saddam to terrorize his people and potentially the rest of the world. This is not a viable alternative.

Bush’s State of the Union address was sickening in its unfounded polemics, but the president did speak one iota of truth: “trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.” The problem with this non-plan is that Saddam’s weapons (if he has them, which he does) are not pointing at France, Germany, or any of the other voices of dissent in the UN. They are pointing straight at us.

Additionally, Bush and his cronies have invested far too much into this war to call it quits; a peaceful resolution is highly unlikely. Other than exercising our right of free speech, what is the point of dissent? No one in Congress will dare to challenge Bush once we’ve declared war, at risk of being called unpatriotic and losing the next election. The latest Gallup poll shows that 63% of Americans are in favor of invading Iraq.

However, this does not mean that we liberals should roll over and play dead – this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that there is and should be a strong opposition to administration policy. Instead, we must decide what it is we want, and how we will achieve our aims. To do anything else, especially playing the waiting game, is dangerous and cowardly. Why not push for diplomacy, Clinton-izing our approach to Iraq in the same way the administration is opting to deal with North Korea? Desmond Tutu can howl all he wants about the immorality of this war, but liberal inaction may have adverse consequences – it will either allow Bush to steamroll the country into wreaking death and destruction, or it will allow a brutal dictator to remain unchallenged and unpunished.

In the end, we are all fighting the same battle, and we should not allow partisan politics to affect our conceptions of morality. If we truly believe that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that he is a brutal dictator who terrorizes his people, is it morally correct to oppose intervention? We must also ask these same questions of ourselves and our nation’s history as a superpower: while we have intervened against dictators countless times before, we have also financially and militarily supported brutal authoritarian regimes. We discourage wars over the race to arms, yet we ourselves have a sizeable collection of nasty weapons. Might never has and never will make right.

These questions run deeper than two hour’s worth of televised propaganda (see: State of the Union address), and they also run deeper than 500,000 urban elites screaming “Drop Bush, Not Bombs!” Do we fancy-coffee-toting liberals really believe that the Iraqi people should continue to suffer? How deep is our faith in democracy? The fact that some people in the world (namely Iraqis, amongst others) live without all of the same freedoms that we enjoy is a form of inequality – not a form of inequality that directly impacts us, like seeing homeless people on the street while returning to a warm, comfortable apartment – but inequality nonetheless. Iraq is not under the United States’ jurisdiction, and this is one of the strongest anti-war arguments. But it is a nation of the same world we inhabit, whose people should be afforded the same civil and political rights as ours. Many other nations, historically and currently, have suffered the same fate as the Iraqis; what is left up for consideration is whether this is a necessary and sufficient cause for war.

Peace is the antithesis of war, but peace is not the result of inaction. Liberals (and conservatives) must rally to find a way to depose Saddam, with carrots or sticks, or face the fact that war is the only real option on the table right now.

Moral War?
by Jermaine Smith

As our country and its choice few allies inch ever closer to what seems an inevitable showdown in Iraq, the voices of millions around the world have risen above the deafening drums of war to signify, arguably, the first mass world effort against war.

However, the question remains: what is the purpose of this conflict? What element pits some, myself included, against the popular vote to enter into war? Evidence is presented almost daily to support a use of force and yet, even with this, a substantial minority are not keen on the idea. Others find the verification overwhelming and eagerly anticipate the confrontation, cursing the delay.

Perhaps it is time to sit down and review the facts.

The first Bush administration initiated this confrontation over a decade ago, sending inspectors into Iraq to uncover weapons of mass destruction. The inspections never took place without Iraqi interference and, thus, the results were inconclusive and the entire process a complete waste of time. Curiously, there was never a follow up on this failed attempt to relieve Iraq of its weapons, which, as our government reminds us everyday, pose “an immediate threat to our country, our freedom and our way of life.”

That is, no one followed up until now.

Enter 2001, and nearly the first full year in office for current President George W. Bush. Terrifying images from the September 11th attacks linger fresh in the mind of all Americans, and much support and empathy pours from around the world. President Bush has vowed to apprehend and bring to justice all who aided in the most tragic day in recent American history. The United States subsequently attacks and raids Afghanistan in a (still) fruitless attempt to bring to justice the chief culprit, a one Osama Bin Laden.

President Bush, in his honorable attempt to bring stability and a sense of security back to our country, has now set out on a mission to, essentially, rid the world of “evil” and those who would collaborate and bring to fulfillment an attack on democracy (read: the United States). This evil includes, specifically, Saddam Hussein.

Yes, this point is worth repeating as it is often lost on many: the U.S. has stated repeatedly, officially, that the conflict is NOT with the citizens of Iraq, but their dictatorial leader, Hussein.

Hussein has developed (reportedly), housed (allegedly) and has no qualms with using (supposedly) weapons of mass destruction, which, as we all know, is in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441. Hussein has repeatedly interfered with the inspections, enforced by the United Nations, which would clear the nation of any wrongdoings.

In addition, it is a well-known and documented fact that Hussein has ordered the torture, blackmail and, ultimately, murder of many of his own citizens. These crimes against humanity, unquestionably, must cease immediately. That point, it seems, the world receives well.

However, that is not the reason our President gives for going to war.

As it stands, the official position of the Bush administration seems to deal predominantly with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of the Iraqi government and, more specifically, the ability of these weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists.

While this certainly could be a viable threat, has it not been a threat for at least the past decade? It is undeniable that this sudden interest in security arose from the 9/11 attacks, but is that justification for immediate and forceful action on a seemingly dead issue?

Would it not seem more appropriate to point to a more universally accepted approach, such as humanitarian aid? There are more supporters of humanitarian aid than of an imperialistic, trigger-happy super power.

With these few facts in mind, how should we approach this impending war? It is arguable that the success of this war, regardless of its outcome, rests largely on the acceptance of participating nations’ citizens back home. Let us not forget the invaluable lesson taught by Vietnam: war is not won solely with heavy artillery and explosions, but with a combination of might and will, something that an unsupported war will surely lack.

This has become less about the issues, weapons of mass destruction and crimes against humanity, as it has about the moral implications of such an undertaking. Given the United States’ official stance, its lack of support from not only its own citizens (though granted, the majority seems in favor) but also purported allies and the suspicion by many of ulterior motives, the question arises: is it just to press on with this war?

On the one hand, it would be a great victory for not only the U.S. and its allies, but also for diplomatic intervention itself, were the conflict settled by a peaceful resolution. However, on the other hand, one must accept the nature of the world and man, and realize that, likely, this war will and must happen. It must because President Bush has already committed himself and the country, verbally and by use of military strategy, to do something, anything. At this point, withdrawal would be the political equivalent of running away with our tails between our legs.

With that, it seems we have hit our mark. The use of force or, for that matter, the promise of an expelled Saddam Hussein as a byproduct of this venture is not what unsettles the masses. We have entered this affair under dubious pretenses and our current goals betray the potentially noble cause of such an intervention.

Few disagree that Hussein is an unfit leader. Few disagree Iraq probably has or has had weapons of mass destruction. Few disagree that Hussein is guilty of atrocities committed against humanity. Few disagree that action should be taken against him. Many disagree how to accomplish this goal.

There is no wiggle-room to back out of the proceedings, and yet, the wills of the participants do not appear to be with the cause. With a situation such as this, we will soon find ourselves fighting two wars: one in the crowded streets of Baghdad and the other in our conscience

Welcome to the first edition of Exposit. Exposit is a new magazine intended to publicize the social and political views of the underrepresented generation -- ours. Each week we'll publish our reactions to current issues, themes, and trends in the news. We hope to challenge the status quo, and to offer a voice of dissent. Read on; we invite your feedback.

Jermaine Smith and Anna Schwartz
Co-Editors-in-Chief