As a country we are faced with a seemingly intractable and highly complex problem in Iraq. In light of this, the idea that the young men and women who chose to walk out of class or attend the protest march to Congressman Ed Markey's office on Thursday were doing so out of a simplistic understanding of the war is itself na've.
The title of Theodore Minch's viewpoint, "Non-cooperation grossly oversimplifies the war in Iraq," (April 19) is a misnomer. While Minch's title suggests to the reader that a sober and serious discussion about the complexities of America's role in Iraq is to follow, his viewpoint fails to do so, not because he ignores the facts or willfully misconstrues the situation, but because his essential condemnation of non-cooperation as a legitimate action constitutes a dangerous simplification of the idea of dissent. Minch also incorrectly faults the anti-war movement for not supporting the troops and fails to prescribe a productive policy to guide us in Iraq.
Borrowing a page from my LSAT prep book, it becomes clear that Minch's argument contains a classic logical flaw: confusion of the point at issue. By distorting and selectively quoting Gabe Frumkin's opinions, as expressed in his viewpoint, "Protesting a dubious war," (April 17) Minch misconstrues Frumkin's frustration with the war effort with a lack of support for the troops. A more accurate representation of Frumkin's argument runs, "our soldiers continue to serve bravely and suffer in hostile territory for nothing." Recognizing the futility and strategic missteps of our mission in Iraq is not a criticism of our armed forces but rather is one directed against the policymakers and legislators who have failed them so profoundly.
While I fully accept and empathize with Minch's lament that a 1,000-word opinion piece cannot do justice to the complexities of the security situation in the Middle East, I am disappointed that his best policy proposal is to trust the administration's newest policy unquestionably. A close reading of Minch's piece, however, suggests a different course of action.
He wrote, "What we are doing now - just allowing our boats to cruise around the Persian Gulf while we help rebuild Iraq - is enough to keep the Iranians from carrying out any attack." Perhaps without realizing it, Minch has endorsed the very idea that anti-war politicians are currently suggesting. The current plan for a phased redeployment would direct more troops towards doing exactly that - providing a credible deterrent to the possibility of Iranian attack while handing over increasingly more civil duty to the Iraqi people.
Senator John McCain tells us that "There is no Plan B." While I personally subscribe to Slate.com columnist Phillip Carter's theory that our military is currently working on something more akin to "Plan G" in Iraq, any reasonably informed voter can recognize that our military can only sustain so many iterations of the unsuccessful and botched war effort before our armed forces cease to be a credible defense force.
While I cannot claim with Minch's certainty that the current troop "surge" is working, I also cannot agree with the substantial portion of the American population advocating for a nearly immediate disengagement from the conflict.
Congress has agreed to see through the administration's last push for better policy in Iraq by providing funding for the president's surge. I believe that we ought to fund this endeavor long enough to give it a chance but I also believe that it is probably too little, too late.
By this time next year the United States of America will have been fighting in Iraq for over five years, more than a year longer than the United States was involved in the Second World War. Far from fulfilling the role of "an enabler," as Minch suggests, the American misadventure in Iraq has encouraged our enemies around the world; fertilized a protracted, violent insurgency; and failed to prevent an unacceptable death toll from being laid upon American and Iraqi families.
Importantly, I believe that an injustice is done to Tufts students observing the day of non-cooperation (of which I was not one) by assuming that their actions are "arbitrary" as Minch suggests. It seems to me that much of the recent debate surrounding the validity of non-cooperation as a legitimate tool to affect policy has assumed that it is a blunt instrument, expressing nothing but an across-the-board negation of whatever topic is being protested.
A more nuanced understanding of civil disobedience, however, recognizes the affirmative, enabling utility of peaceful non-cooperation. In his seminal essay "Civil Disobedience," Henry David Thoreau wrote, "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform."
Thoreau argued that disobedience is not simply an expression of disagreement; it is a positive force as well - for change and reform. Minch's admission that he is "not saying that the Bush administration has been perfect" suggests that he is agreeable to the idea of reform but is interested in being an obstacle.
Non-cooperation is not inaction - it is a proactive and powerful form of dissent. Expressing discontent, far from an act of sedition or merely an act of self-expression, is one of the most patriotic activities in which students can partake. Much of the debate about Iraq and how we ought to express our frustration is clouded by misconceptions about the purpose of non-cooperation as well as the lack of a credible, nuanced understanding about the reality our troops face each day in the country of Iraq.
While I may not personally agree about specifics with everyone who partook in Thursday's events, I can certainly endorse their message: that our days in Iraq ought to be numbered and peaceful protest is a productive manner of expressing this dissatisfaction.
Patrick Roath is a sophomore majoring in international relations. He is a news editor at the Observer; his opinions do not necessarily represent those of the magazine.
