Diplomacy is not necessarily appeasement. Patriotism is not necessarily good citizenship. Protesting one war is not necessarily the protesting of all wars. It amazes me — though perhaps it shouldn’t — that people can’t seem to make these distinctions. If I argue that this is both an unnecessary and foolhardy war, and I denounce the motives, tactics, and disregard for consequences that have thrust us into it, I do not do so in order to lend support to Saddam Hussein. There is little question that his is an unjust regime. But that does not necessarily mean that military invasion is our best course of action.
What bothers me is that there was never any discussion; that the very real concerns of both protestors and allies were never addressed; that instead of debating and explaining their position, those who support the war choose instead to insult, belittle or, at best, disregard those who protest it. Despite the potentially terrible consequences of their actions.
As Tom Tomorrow writes:
This is why it’s important for those who would take us into war to treat us like grownups, to explain why this terrible last resort is unavoidable: so that the American people can make an informed decision about the costs of the war and the rationality of those who would lead us there.
I would be willing to accept that I was wrong about this war if its supporters could demonstrate that it was our best, or only, option. If they could cite some evidence other than rhetoric, misplaced patriotism, or outright lies. If they were even willing to have that argument, to lay the facts out on the table for inspection, rather than question the loyalty and intelligence of those who call those facts into question.