Dissent against war hard to understand

Of My World View

"As the war in Iraq enters its second week, President George W. Bush's approval rating rose to 68 percent — a 15 percent increase from two weeks ago," according to a March 29 Newsweek poll. The article goes on to say, "Seventy percent of those polled approve of … his actions in Iraq … a 17 percent jump from the percentage who approved of Bush's policies to deal with the threat posed by Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein in late January."

Yet anti-war protesters remain furious with Bush and are demonstrating all over the country. The Muslim street is expressing its rage in typical fashion. Angry mobs gather to burn the U.S. flag and shout, "Death to America" and "Bush is a terrorist."

It amazes me that Saddam Hussein, who earned the title "Butcher of Baghdad," is not the target of all this angry criticism. The outraged voices of protesters speak not of the atrocities visited upon Iraqis by Hussein, nor do they call for his surrender. Their bitter rhetoric targets coalition leaders who decided, after 12 years of failed diplomatic efforts, to forcefully rid Iraq of a brutal regime.

In America, the Bush administration is the target of a very vocal minority. Most of the protesters are hostile democrats who are so distrusting of the Republican president that they are blind to his honorable motives. A recent Gallop poll showed that 94 percent of republicans support the war and over 50 percent of democrats do. Anti-war rhetoric continues to repeat the accusation that Bush is acting unilaterally, but according to a recent Pentagon briefing, 49 other countries publicly support the war.

Consider the noble goals of this coalition — protect Americans and allied nations from attacks using weapons of mass destruction, liberate Iraqis from cruel domination, lift the economic sanctions and turn an oil rich country back over to the Iraqi populace and help them to once again achieve the national prominence that they had before being raped by Hussein. Against which of these do the angry mobs protest?

Have the anti-war protesters not heard of the Kurds? The Kurdish armed forces in northern Iraq are ready and willing to oust Hussein. While watching the news, I heard one Kurdish leader state that he was a coalition partner with the United States and Britain and added that France was wrong to oppose the war.

Two weeks into the war, the Shiites in the south are starting to realize that it is safe to welcome coalition troops. A well-respected religious leader, who had been persecuted by the regime for his comments in the past, is now speaking out. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani, based in Najaf, Iraq, issued a fatwah, a legal and religious document, calling for Iraqis not to resist the coalition forces. Dissenting Shiites have been the target of Hussein's death squads. In Basra, the "Fedayeen Saddam," or "willing to die for Saddam," have, "summarily executed soldiers from Iraq's 51st Division who didn't want to fight," according to a Newsweek Web article from March 29. Still, some Americans will continue to protest the war and suggest that Bush is the bad guy.

What about the majorities in Europe who oppose the war? Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor during the Clinton administration, said, "Part of the problem is that we have put this in a context of preemption … This frightens the rest of the world." He's right. America's unique superpower status has the rest of the world scrutinizing her every move. This is especially true after the Bush administration decided to publicly state its policy of preemptive action when necessary. I guess protesters in Europe would have us wait for the next Sept. 11, 2001, just to make sure the threat is present.

The Muslim street is seething at the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Why do they not vent their rage at Hussein's regime? "Saddam has been responsible for the deaths of some 750,000 people since his rise to power," retired General Barry McCaffrey said on MSNBC. This figure represents Iraqis who displeased Hussein and does not include the millions of Muslims who died in an eight-year war with Iran and the thousands of Kuwaitis that were killed or tortured when Iraq invaded in 1990.

Middle Eastern media is largely to blame for the hostile attitude of the average Muslim. Even al-Jazeera, the only cable news network in the Middle East not controlled by a Muslim government, presents the news in a way that encourages hostilities against America. On March 22, Walid Phares, a terrorism expert for MSNBC, was asked if al-Jazeera is giving the Muslim world the impression that Iraq is winning the war. Walid replied, "Yes, absolutely" and later explained, "I have reviewed the video tapes of Al-Jazeera since Sept. 11, 2001, … It has been interviewing clerics, radical clerics, before the attack on Iraq, trying to get fatwas from them … calling for jihad or religious war against the United States."

The most recent reports from Baghdad reveal celebration in the streets, yet much of the Muslim street is still opposed to coalition forces. It will take some time to win hearts and minds in the Middle East. Their perception of political events is greatly different from ours.

After the war is won, look for a free press to emerge in Iraq that brings some balance to the traditional lopsided reporting. Perhaps one day we will witness the Muslim street burning the flags of their own oppressive governments amid shouts of "Death to dictatorship."

Jon Anderson is a senior individualized studies major.