It won't surprise anyone who knows me to find out that I have an opinion on the Iraqi war. Indeed, it is rare for me not to have an opinion. War is insane, yet there comes a time when war is necessary. As I write this article, I can imagine the objectors protesting, "War is never justified!" I will admit from the beginning that I do not believe that the war in Iraq is preemptive. Whatever it is or was, it is not preemptive. I'll mention more on this below.

Generally objectors to the war in Iraq argue from some of the following premises,

-The war was to steal oil.
-The war was preemptive and unprovoked.
-The war is evil (usually all war).
-Our troops are dying.
- Iraq is in chaos.
-Thousands of Iraqis have died in the war and are continuing to die in uprisings.

The criticism above are some of the arguments as they appear in basic form. Actually, you never really hear them explained in any greater detail, and I think all of them are invalid.

My objections are as follows,

-People have died in Iraq because of the war, but people would have died anyways and probably in great numbers at the hands of Saddam Hussein in the long run.
-No weapons of mass destruction have been found in large quantities, but Saddam behaved as though he had them. Furthermore, he failed to comply with previously agreed upon resolutions established after the Gulf War (19 times I believe).

We know and unfortunately did know prior to the war that Saddam Hussein was committing atrocious acts. Unequivocally, we know that he tortured, maimed, and raped his people (along with many other cruel acts). Mass graves are a fact in Iraq, and they were created at the hands of an evil dictator, not at the hands of liberating troops. The deaths that have occurred and will occurr post US involvement are deaths that serve to secure a people's freedom. It is sad that people must die. Yet, the future that Iraq now has is one of hope. How other than war was such an oppressed people going to free itself? The other viewpoint likes to talk about resolutions and sanctions, but the truth is undeniable. Saddam was clearly not interested in the world's opinion. He was not even interested in his own people's opinion. I could ask why antiwar protestors weren't in Iraq protesting against Saddam prior to the war, but I think I already know the answer(s).

-They didn't care till the war started.
-They like to protest in a country where they don't have to worry about being run over by a tank.
-Antiwar protesting is a club of misinformed and misguided citizens, and they only get together whenever there is a just war to protest against that is fighting for the liberation of an oppressed people.

Why do antiwar protestors rear their heads, only, after diplomacy has failed to bring peace? Talking has to stop at some point by the way! I for one think we spent to long negotiating with Saddam Hussein. If we could hear the voices of those who lay in the mass unmarked graves of Iraq, I imagine they would agree. If America should be tried in a court, it should be for its apathy toward the injustices committed in Iraq prior to the war. Our record on the genocide being conducted in the Sudan, unfortunately, is equally contemptible.

I don't advocate being the world's police. Ultimately, I would prefer to see a nation's people rise up and change its country's future without external involvement. However, not all countries are able to voice dissent without fear of death at the hands of an evil dictator. In America, we are free to dissent. If peaceful, we get to go home at the end of the day. If you were to dissent in Iraq prior to the war, you went to the grave at the end of the day (or worse a torture chamber). Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the Tinainmen Square incident of 1989. Many protestors standing up for change quickly became the victims of a cruel regime. They were at last free but dead, and so died the voices of many crying out of the wilderness (hundreds to thousands were killed depending on who you believe).

What about Gandhi and King? What they did was beautiful. They successfully challenged the accepted social mores of their day. They appealled to a higher objective morality (oops my worldview is coming out). I dare say Gandhi accomplished peaceful protest because he lived in a country governed by a people who at its heart allowed dissent and protest ( he and King endured much physical violence). Even the civil rights movement in America succeeded because of the core principles at the heart of this nation (still such principles were superseded by the Revolutionary and Civil War). They both faced violence, but they atleast had the protection of the law. It may have failed at times, even been corrupt, but it was still in place to protect. However, had such a struggle like Gandhi's or King's been attempted in a nonwestern minded society, it would have been crushed. Democracy aided their dissent. Hate murdered them, and hate rules some countries, like the former Iraq. Dictatorships aren't conducive to peaceful dissent. As a result, civil or world war may be necessary! Afterwards, when the freedom to dissent and protest has been secured, the antiwar protestors can complain that war is unjust. All the while, consciously aware of the knowledge that at the end of the day they can go home and feel good about their post liberation involvement, but only because others have secured their freedom to do so.

Think about it....