Letter: Columnist embodies naivete of anti-war movement

Emily LaDue's suggestion that "We should build domestic opposition to Saddam Hussein, not wage war" is typical of the naivete of the anti-war movement. To suggest that the Iraqi people were capable of overthrowing a regime that has demonstrated a clear willingness to massacre its own people is folly.

Pursuing such a course of action in Afghanistan gave us the Taliban. LaDue overlooks the fact that bloodshed is an unfortunate, but inherent, byproduct of the struggle for democracy. Yes, people on every side of the conflict have suffered and died, but current casualty figures pale in comparison to those that would have resulted from an Iraqi civil war.

Moreover, LaDue's claim that the U.S. government and media are ignoring protests while glorifying war is groundless. Anti-war protests have become as much a part of the evening news as basketball scores. If we do not take them seriously, it is due to the petty antics of the likes of Yousuf Al-Bulushi and Jessica Rutter, foolishly storming a recent Duke Student Government meeting and blocking access to Chapel Drive Thursday afternoon. Perhaps if the antiwar movement would present a more serious, intellectual front instead of pursuing theatrical tactics that provoke attention, but no intellectual discourse, it would be taken more seriously.

Lastly, LaDue's comments on our motivations are unfounded. Her assertion that the purpose of this war was to solidify the financial situations and authority of those in power is both unfair and inaccurate. Furthermore, to suggest that there is some hidden agenda behind our protection of Iraqi oil reserves is asinine - that is, unless LaDue can suggest another way for a fledgling democratic Iraq to establish an economy. If you want the real reason we went to war, look to the Iraqis celebrating their newfound freedom in the streets of Baghdad. Perhaps from the ruins of tyranny, there will arise a beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the Middle East.