Pacifism: Part of the Problem

by Thomas C. Donovan

The attack on the United States on September eleventh by the Al Qaeda terrorist organization based in Afghanistan has posed a serious question to the United States government and to the American people: should military action be pursued as a tool to bring this and other terrorist organizations to justice?

To most, this question is obviously answered in the affirmative. More than six-thousand-three-hundred-ninety people perished as a result of the attacks. Unlike the World War II Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the last attack on United States soil, in which 2,403 military personnel met their end, this attack was on United States civilians, and in a time of relative peace.

Certainly, there is little doubt as to where the government stands on this issue. President Bush's speech at the joint session of Congress on September 20th and the declaration of Operation Enduring Freedom show the clear preference of our leaders towards the use of force to root out terrorism. However, the American people have a choice to make: whether to stand behind our government or to protest the use of our military.

While a clear majority of Americans favor some kind of retaliatory action against Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist group harbored within the country, there are some who, regardless of the imminence of danger or the number of American lives lost, declare their pacifistic preference for peace at any price.

Anyone who has walked by Collis in the past two weeks has, no doubt, seen an elderly , bearded man displaying signs with slogans like "An eye for an eye makes the world blind" and other anti-war treacle. My initial assignment was to find out who this man was, why he held such an unpopular viewpoint, and why he wished to brandish his ignorance of foreign politics on posterboard. However, perhaps realizing the error of his ways or simply that he did not seem to have any converting effect whatsoever on the student body, he has not returned to his protest in a number of days, and I am among those happier for it.

Sadly enough, what these few lone protestors may not realize is that in supporting peace they are not only playing into the hands of the terrorists, but also helping the terrorists to carry out their crusade. For the organization that committed the horrific acts of September eleventh, a holy war was already in place against all Americans. By refusing to fight back, we would assume the role of a boxer in the political arena who, in the tenth round of the world championship fight, goes from pugilist to pacifist and puts down his guard, refusing to retaliate against his opponent's blows. How quickly would that boxer be knocked out? If we decide not to fight back against the actions of the Al Qaeda, we would leave ourselves open for further attack and eventual destruction.

Some of the pacifists believe that we cannot declare war on a whole country based upon the actions of a few. Brian J. Hertler, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a recent phone conversation, "We can't just attack Afghanistan...they didn't do this. This is the act of an organization independent from their government..." This argument, though it holds some validity, is technically unsound. The Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan, has harbored the Al Qaeda terrorist organization for years, refusing to prosecute them or hand them over to be prosecuted. In supporting and harboring those who committed the atrocious acts against America, the government of Afghanistan has become one and the same with their Al Qaeda allies. The attack was enabled by the Taliban's refusal to comply with demands to release Osama bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, after the bombing of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000.

A point made by the anti-war minority time and time again is that we should not respond by attacking the civilians of another country. They argue that in doing so, we become no better than terrorists. This point, like so many others made by these ignorant individuals is invalid. The terrorist acts of September eleventh were unprovoked, unpredictable acts. By going to war, we may end up killing civilians, but at least Afghanistan would know the attack was coming, unlike the thousands whose lives were cut short by a fiery explosion one fateful Tuesday morn.

I recently received an invitation to an anti-war protest in Washington D.C. sponsored by the Dartmouth College Campus Greens and Peaceful Justice. Appended to the bottom of the message were the words "BREAD for ALL, PEACE for ALL, These are JUSTICE. (sic)" Though their grammar is faulty, I did manage to deduce the following meaning from these seemingly mindless ramblings: "Peace, land, bread!" Sound familiar?

The many men and women among us who are knowledgeable of the facts of the situation see what must be done and what is to come for America. Perhaps if the flower-picking peacemongers who so determinately thrust their views on us in times of crisis were to actually read a newspaper or watch CNN, they would realize the following: peace is not always the best option! If we "give peace a chance" we are also giving Al Qaeda and similar organizations a chance to take more innocent American lives. We must recognize the threat to our country and take the appropriate action to preserve our government, our way of life, our ideals, and the lives of our citizens.