The Left that cried wolf: Al-Qaeda and war with Iraq

There is a world of difference between radical evil and sheer stupidity, between a course of action that is immoral and one that is merely, if severely, ill-advised.

Saddam Hussein, for example, is an evil man, and his tyrannical rule in Iraq is profoundly immoral. George W. Bush, however, is just a stupid man, and his proposed invasion of Iraq is perhaps the worst strategy in the war on terror that one could possibly envision.

As Al-Qaeda continues to orchestrate terror against America and her allies around the globe, targeting civilians and soldiers alike, it is mad to shift attention away from this real danger to a petty despot who poses no greater threat to America now than he has for the past ten years. And while there is no evidence of an alliance between the secular regime in Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the massive, semipermanent occupying force which Bush plans to install in a chaotic, post-Saddam Iraq would become a sitting target for theocratic terrorists, who are already busying themselves murdering our soldiers in Kuwait. It also seems likely that an invasion of Iraq will also alienate our allies, increase support for fundamentalism among Muslims, and provoke Hussein to a final, suicidal attack on Israel. One shudders at the possible consequences for the world, and for America's place within it.

None of this should be taken to imply that an American invasion of Iraq would somehow be unjust or illegitimate, as if Saddam Hussein had some sort of moral right to oppress his people. To the contrary, most plausible arguments against Bush's war are grounded in a selfish concern for American security, not to mention in a desire to defeat those responsible for the horrors of Sept. 11, the Al-Qaeda terrorists who continue to perpetrate attacks against Western targets in Indonesia, Kuwait, Yemen and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the people making the case against war with Iraq on campuses across the country have, over the course of the past year, disqualified themselves from putting forward these arguments. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the habitual activists of the collegiate left revealed themselves to be incapable of distinguishing between defensive and aggressive, advisable and ill-advised, or just and unjust wars. At a time when those responsible for the recent deaths of thousands of Americans were still in control of an entire state in Central Asia, the call for "peace" rang hollow indeed. Now, with the Republican administration about to embark on a military misadventure of terrible proportions, it is unfortunate that the left's call for peace rings as hollow as ever.

In order to argue convincingly that war with Iraq is not in America's interest, one must have a heartfelt concern for this interest, and hence a genuine sense of patriotism. Yet the collegiate left has come to be identified with a radical fringe who feel that the Western hegemon can do no right, while the powerless people of the developing world can do no wrong. While such ideas may be fashionable among a certain minority within the academic elite, they leave most of the public convinced that the left simply hates America. The patriotic liberal is robbed of an effective voice, as the Princeton Peace Network once more pulls out its placards from last fall, ready to face off yet again with the flag-wavers of PCAT, who have come to equate love of country with blind support of Bush.

This situation will only change when campus activists cease to value radicalism for its own sake, and come to make the sort of ethical distinctions which responsible political judgments are all about. Moral clarity cannot, and must not, be the exclusive possession of the right.

Osama bin Laden is evil. The World Bank and the IMF, although they often pursue ill-advised policies, are not. The tyrannical regime in Iraq is evil. Bush's quasi-elected Republican regime, although it is dangerously close to pursuing a potentially disastrous war, is not. It is merely misguided, and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to correct it, now that Congress has conspicuously failed to do so.

Were students and teachers to criticize Bush's coming war in this patriotic spirit, Princeton would truly be acting in the nation's service, and in the service of all nations. Michael Frazer is a graduate student in the Politics Department. He may be reached at mfrazer@princeton.edu.