Vandalism brings no peace
But acts are not reflective of peace movement
By Chris Walker
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
With regard to military policy, I would have to consider myself a cautious pacifist. I understand that war is sometimes essential, but for the most part can be avoided with simple diplomacy. That, I believe, is the biggest lesson we have learned (or in some cases, have yet to learn) from the Iraq War.
On the fifth anniversary of the war, several students and other community leaders in Milwaukee and nationwide held protests against our occupation of Iraq. Not all of these protests were peaceful; indeed, the Army Recruiting Center on Oakland was hit by vandalism during the days of protest against the war. The vandalism was clearly done by people who were opposed to the war; the center was tagged with slogans such as “War is Offensive” and other statements.
This action is not representative of the peace movement; most protestors of the war are not vandals, nor are they criminal in any way whatsoever, besides the occasional speeding or parking ticket (something which affects people of all political ideologies equally).
The act of vandalism against the Army Recruiting Center was disrespectful, distasteful and repulsive; kind of strange coming from the keystrokes of a liberal, you say? It’s no secret that I am no fan of the war in Iraq. However, I learned long ago, before the war even began, to hate the policy and not the ones carrying it out. It’s their job; the soldiers in Iraq didn’t choose to go there, they were ordered to go.
The Army Recruiting Center was not responsible for the presence of our troops in Iraq; we can lay all the blame for that upon the Bush administration. What the vandals did was nothing short of disgusting, and should be seen as intolerable even by left-minded individuals. We cannot protest the people involved in this catastrophe of a foreign policy: it is not their responsibility.
For the most part, the Peace movement understands that. The actions of these vandals, however, validate the view that some conservatives have of the Peace movement, that they are all violent protestors who will stop at nothing to end this war.
That is simply untrue. Protestors of this war are not, for the most part, violent people. There are the occasional peace protestors who will go forth and do destructive things, but that is true within any movement. If we were to say that all peace movement protestors were violent, we could also say that all pro-lifers approved of violent means simply because there are bombings of abortion clinics.
Naturally, we recognize that not all pro-life proponents are violent. In fact, for the vast majority, violence goes against everything they believe in. Violent members of the pro-life movement are not, however, representative of the pro-life movement as a whole.
The same is true of the peace movement. For the most part, these people are protesting a war they disagree with using peaceful means. There are a few bad eggs within their ranks, but they do not represent the movement as a whole.
When things like this happen, we must remember to distinguish between the movement and some of its disgruntled followers. The Peace movement protestors are not responsible for the destructive behavior of some of its followers who do not follow one of its basic tenets: peace.
> Comments
same old story. on Apr 02, 2008 at 03:14 PM:
they used spray paint? --> they used depleted uranium and napalm.
they broke a window? --> they killed over a million Iraqis, mostly children.
stop using the word "violence" inappropriately.
these are not my preferred tactics either, but the notion that a quiet march through downtown on a saturday is somehow the "peaceful" and, thus, legitimate way to demand an end to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is mistaken.
the only legitimate way to do this is the one that is most effective. whether or not success comes from the methods you prefer is yet to be determined (though i suspect that it is unlikely). in the meantime don't take your eye off of the ball: the occupation of Iraq is serious. real people are losing their real lives, by the hundreds, every day.
it doesn't matter whether or not you are a "fan" of the war. this is not basketball. this is not a spectator sport. people are dying...will you just sit and watch it happen?
Johanan Raatz on Apr 02, 2008 at 09:02 PM:
"they used spray paint? --> they used depleted uranium and napalm."
Yes and those are appropriate as weapons of war. Unless the vandals are at war(in which case they would be domestic terrorists) comparing the two would be invalid.
"they broke a window? --> they killed over a million Iraqis, mostly children."
You're cherrypicking the maximum highest statistic here. Not even Lancet's study (which is itself highly controversial) came up with numbers like that. Most credible sources do not have numbers nearly this high. In fact the majority of statistics I have seen regarding casualties revolve around 15-50 thousand. The statistic I use is the one from the Brookings Institute's: Iraq Index which places the civilian casualties around 35 thousand which is close to the UN figure.
Coming from a science background though I can tell you that when most of the data points cluster around one area the ones that deviate from mean are usually less credible. Especially if they are not even the right order of magnitude. 1 million and 600,000 are definitely not even of the right order of magnitude.
"stop using the word "violence" inappropriately."
This is a perfectly appropriate use of the term. Vandalism is violent behavior, it may be less violent then killing in wartime, but the context is different. In a state of war the rules of civility are suspended. However, public discourse about the war is supposed to be civil unless you are opposed to having civil debate.
"these are not my preferred tactics either, but the notion that a quiet march through downtown on a saturday is somehow the "peaceful" and, thus, legitimate way to demand an end to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is mistaken."
OK I see the problem here. You are opposed to solving problems through civil discourse. Your not supposed to be "demanding" anything. The point of protests is to spark debate not be used as a means to "demand" something.
"the only legitimate way to do this is the one that is most effective. whether or not success comes from the methods you prefer is yet to be determined (though I suspect that it's unlikely)."
See your only concerned with the most efficient way to "win" here not debating the issue.
"in the meantime don't take your eye off of the ball: the occupation of Iraq is serious."
Then debate the issue. Vandalism is uncivil and is furthermore counterproductive to your own viewpoint.
"real people are losing their real lives, by the hundreds, every day."
Yeah and many proponents of continuing the war would argue that part of what we are doing there is trying to prevent that. We originally invaded which was aggressive but it was to liberate the country from Saddam. Now however it is the terrorists and insurgents who are the aggressors. If we leave them to their own devices there is no reason to believe they won't continue to kill at a far greater rate left unchecked.
"it doesn't matter whether or not you are a "fan" of the war. this is not basketball. this is not a spectator sport. people are dying...will you just sit and watch it happen?"
Well if you want to end the war help us win it. The coalition forces are currently acting as peacekeepers. If you want to end civilian casualties it would make sense to have the peacekeepers kill more terrorists and not less.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 02, 2008 at 09:03 PM:
Nice article Chris. I have many friends who are staunch opponents of the war and they would be appalled at this behavior.
Aaron Jeske on Apr 04, 2008 at 09:50 AM:
For the last time, Depleted Uranium has no proven link to any sort of radiation disease or defect.
Please look at all the facts before you make yourself sound like an idiot....again.