Quiet on the Set
by Jermaine Smith

Here in the land of the free, sometimes it is hard to restrain ourselves: Americans have the right to protest, to question the administration and to essentially cause a ruckus whenever things don't go our way. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with dissent -- it's the American way -- but sometimes the voice of the alternative opinion emanates from the wrong mouth.

As Allied forces proceed further into Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom is well underway. Throughout the nation, many still find it worthwhile to protest the war, citing civilian deaths and wrongful motivation . Ostensibly, one of our motives for this war is to preserve our way of life, which protects our right to voice these opinions. But these voices have minimal effect as we will not withdraw troops based on the hang-ups of the nation's minority opinion.

We seem to have forgotten that our elected officials, though we often disagree with them, are better suited to make decisions of this nature than the average citizen: too many people in the public eye are sticking their noses where they do not belong.

At the Oscars, the Academy honored director Michael Moore for his documentary entitled "Bowling for Columbine," an anti-gun piece about the Columbine High School tragedy. Mr. Moore then chose to use his time receiving the award by taking personal jabs at the President and his administration. While many of us may agree with his sentiment (that the President was perhaps not rightfully elected, that we shouldn't be at war), it is inappropriate to voice this opinion at an inopportune time: for example, an awards show which is not intended to be a personal forum for political antics.

However, Mr. Moore is not the only celebrity opposing the war in Iraq. George Clooney, Martin Sheen and others, including celebrities in other nations, have all joined in the chorus of "no war." While these opinions are perfectly valid, as each American is entitled to believe whatever he wants, it is not appropriate for celebrities to take every opportunity afforded them to bash the Bush administration and certainly not to "inform" the American public regarding a topic of which they have modest knowledge.

Actor Sean Penn recently made a visit to Iraq, where he was greeted by the nation’s deputy prime minister. Mr. Penn believed it was his "duty" to see for himself what America would be fighting against. What logic is Mr. Penn employing? It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government would allow a foreign entertainer into their military facilities to inspect weapons of mass destruction when they do not allow UN inspectors that privilege. It is logical that all the government allowed Mr. Penn to see was what it wanted him to see, thereby using him as a propaganda tool to support their cause.

Another Hollywood A-list performer, Susan Sarandon, is against the war. On a morning show in mid-February, she pleaded with the Bush administration to "get real" about its plans in Iraq. She cited the lack of planning and motives to pursue such a war. Echoing the voices of a few generals, congressmen and a select portion of our population, Ms. Sarandon presented herself as a representative of American opinion.

Well, perhaps Mr. Moore, Mr. Penn, Ms. Sarandon and their peers are correct. Perhaps our current administration should forget what their intelligence agents report to them. Perhaps the administration should ignore the information it has access to (which surely our general public does not) and cease this war. Moreover, perhaps we should rely on the opinions of a few actors and actresses who were prepared to deliver lines as opposed to our president and his cabinet members who were prepared to make foreign affairs decisions.

Or perhaps not.

Perhaps it is time we remind our entertainers that they are, and remain, in the limelight for one reason: they entertain us. They make films, music and provide us with a relief from everyday life. We do not entrust them with our safety. We do not grant them access to confidential information. We do not elect them (save for a few) to positions of power in our government.

Some celebrities make the case that the media seeks to ridicule them based on their anti-war stance. This may very well be true.

The fact is, it is hard for the public to take performers seriously in the light of world affairs. But are we wrong to feel this way? Would Martin Sheen dominate a war debate with President Bush? Could Bianca Jagger outwit Prime Minister Blair? Furthermore, do these actors and actresses have the background in academia or any of these fields which merit our conscious ears?

In the affairs of the world, Sean Penn is as poorly suited to make decisions and dole out advice as Colin Powell is to play the title role of MacBeth. We will keep our government officials in Washington. Celebrities should do what they do best -- entertain -- and leave world affairs to the professionals.

When Massacres Are No Longer Cause for Concern
by Anna Schwartz

Sounds familiar: failed diplomacy, attacks on civilians, fringe politics, nuclear weapons, military occupation. Yet this is not another story about Iraq – it’s a story with deeper historical roots and equally important implications: the ongoing conflict in the disputed, Indian-controlled state of Kashmir, a conflict that could easily turn into a nuclear war.

Thirty five thousand people have died thus far in the two wars and countless disputes over the territory since the independence and partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Before independence, India contained numerous smaller kingdoms not incorporated into the colonial government’s territory. Kashmir was one of these kingdoms – under the rule of the Maharaja, a Hindu, it had a majority Muslim population. The Maharaja chose in 1947 to be incorporated into India instead of Pakistan, however, and the result has been over fifty years of hot dispute between the nations, most recently last autumn, when there was a buildup of troops along the “line of control” due to the threat of war.

Last Sunday, in a small village called Nadimarg (just south of Srinagar), Islamic militants dressed in Indian army uniforms ordered Hindu families out of their homes in the middle of the night. Those who did not comply were shot with automatic weapons. The massacre claimed the lives of twenty-four Hindus. Although at any other time this slaughter would have received substantial coverage, the war in Iraq has reduced it to less than a blip on the news radar. But we must not ignore this incident. If the Islamic militants are connected with the Pakistani government, or if the Pakistani government fails to punish them severely enough to satisfy the Hindu nationalist BJP, (currently the head of the ruling coalition in India), it will be grounds for war. Unlike previous disputes, this time the stakes will be much higher – both countries have nuclear weapons, and both have threatened to use them.

In another district, the day after the massacre, six Hindus were mutilated, their noses cut off. But the violence has been reciprocal: the massacre may have been retaliation for the assassination of a Muslim Kashmiri separatist, Abdul Majid Dar, a former leader of an Islamic guerilla group. Dar was a proponent of dialogue between India and Pakistan over the region, so his assassins may have been fellow Muslims who believed in more violent solutions. No group has claimed responsibility for the massacre, the mutilations, or the assassination.

President Bush has stressed that the United States’ interests are in keeping the peace between the two nations and preventing a nuclear war. If a war were to erupt, however, the United States has close ties to Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s dubiously undemocratic, non-secular Pakistan because of the post-9/11 witch hunt for terrorists. However, we have strained ties with fully democratic, secular (or at least formerly secular) India due to the nation’s Nehru-era socialist tendencies. The United States is indebted to Pakistan in a way reminiscent of the Kennan Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, which supported authoritarian leaders in Latin America as long as they were anti-communist.

Other nations perceived as a threat before the war, such as North Korea, have also been phased out of the news cycle. But the inflammatory nature of this conflict, and the fact that both of the countries have the nuclear muscle to back up their threats is cause enough for alarm. Whether the government gets its cues from the news or vice versa, the State Department and the U.N. should take note: this conflict will not remain minor for long.

India’s deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, has gone to the region to investigate the conflict and to reassure the Hindus who remain. India is no stranger to religious conflict – last spring, thousands died in the Hindu/Muslim riots in Gujarat, to which the BJP government allegedly contributed through the ordered inaction of the police. In fact, the leader of the opposition Indian Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi, has accused the BJP leaders of inciting violence in Kashmir (and other regions) rather than attempting to quell it.

India and Pakistan will not hesitate to go to war. The danger of this is not only the conflict itself, but also the potential outcome. Although the majority of Kashmir is Muslim, the Hindus who live there will no longer be protected should Pakistan win the territory, as Pakistan has no qualms proclaiming that it is a Muslim state, and civil liberties (for both Muslims and non-Muslims) are enforced unevenly at best. The displaced Hindus will either flee to refugee camps and become a drain on government resources, or suffer a potentially worse fate under the control of Pakistan. The results will be horrific – mass rioting will occur – as it will be partition revisited, accompanied by all the violence that occurred both in 1947 and in 1970-71 during the war of independence for Bangladesh.

We must not allow this war to happen – peace must be enforced, if not by the United States (as U.S. forces are currently occupied in Iraq, and those pesky dissenters might argue over the further imposition of U.S. imperialism), then by the United Nations. There may be no permanent solution to the conflict over Kashmir, but we must not allow nuclear war to materialize. The first step to ensuring peace is recognizing that there is a problem.