Column: It's about us, not Iraq

As thoughtful, scholarly students who recognize that how our country acts at home and abroad affects our American citizen identities, we have a patriotic duty to speak out against the subversion of international law. The war that the George W. Bush administration is pushing and that a submissive Congress appears ready to rubber stamp is not about Iraq--it's about us. We are not simply talking about one nation invading another, let alone addressing the lack of evidence outlining an imminent national security threat. We are talking about setting a new global precedent that has far greater implications than a balance-of-power exercise in the spirit of realpolitik.

Since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has seized the opportunity to act unilaterally under national security. Bush's statement that "either you are with us or with the terrorists" has provided enormous ideological leverage to steamroll opposition to an exploding military budget, the war in Afghanistan and the compromising of civil liberties at home. The proposed war against Iraq is the culmination of a new foreign policy that places the United States' ideological standards--as conveniently dictated by the government in power--above international law.

It took two world wars to build the United Nations, and for more than 60 years the international order has worked, despite flaws, because its member nations weighed and accepted the global importance of international solidarity against unprovoked warfare.

There are distressing similarities between our situation now and the fabricated "Red Scare" of the 1950's and '60's. Before, our nation feared the evil system of communism to the point that we'd wage war in another part of the world based on ideological hype and obscure national security concerns. Today, a national fear of terrorism not only threatens another red herring in the form of an invasion of Iraq, but the overhaul of world order as well.

Consider the international precedent our government is about to set. Imagine what would happen if other significant military powers took it upon themselves to frame a security issue and declare war. India and Pakistan would probably not have stopped at the Kashmir border, Russia would invade Georgia, Israel might annex the West Bank and China may not be so stealthy in its Pacific aggrandizements. Never- mind the political and security ramifications of unchecked unilateral action. Alienating our Arab allies and inciting anti-American sentiment is not the way to "root out" terrorism.

Iraq's U.N. violations must be addressed, and we have an international body that rightly sees military action as a last resort to address them. We're not there yet. The Bush administration has failed to make the case that containment hasn't worked and can't in the future. If, 40 years ago, our government had proposed to deal with the Soviet Union what it proposes today to deal with Iraq, the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been World War III. A growing number of Duke students recognize how frightening the prospect of a U.S. invasion of Iraq is, not only for our own security but for long-term global stability, and have organized to demand a critical analysis of our government's unilateral stand on Iraq. It's about time.

One critical difference between Vietnam yesterday and Iraq today has been the lack of a student voice on the Iraq issue. As thoughtful students of history, we have a patriotic duty to protest actions by our country that threaten not only to subvert international law, but to cost innocent American lives. Imagine that we still had a draft and ask yourself how much more concerned you would be then. Apathy is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to open a dialogue on campus about this issue before our government slides through a resolution on war.

Concerned students are mobilizing at Duke to start such a dialogue and protest our government's egregious lack of justification for violating international law and starting a war. This is an issue that threatens to define not only our generation, but international politics in the long-term. Dorm discussions, rallies, and protests are the least we can do to tell our government that we will not accept an unprovoked war. We may not have the ability to unilaterally derail the Bush Administration's plans, but we can organize a cohesive, unified protest to provide the voice of opposition and critical analysis that our government lacks.