I guess I'm taking this space to officially declare myself in favor of war.
You see, I disagree with Duke Against War.
According to their DukeGroups description, "Duke Against War educates the Duke community about the Iraq war and the Palestinian cause. We advocate against war and occupation, and in favor of peace, order and international law. We are an anti-imperialist organization, an organization struggling for freedom and justice in the Middle East and around the world. We will present speakers, displays, rallies and demonstrations on these issues from a critical, anti-militaristic, anti-colonial perspective."
If this group arose by any other name, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But in truth, they're an organization that's not so much against war as against some wars. I'll ignore the fact that it's a rather bizarre amalgamation of issues with which to be concerned. Why not Iraq and Afghanistan? Why not Palestine and Lebanon? Why not oil and water? All these fit together better than Iraq and Palestine. We can also see that they may not be strictly against militancy in some instances. Case in point, in advertising their vigil for victims of Israel's attack on Gaza, they wrote, "Hundreds have died, thousands more must fight back."
Must they? I thought you were against war?
Oh, that's right. You're not against war. You're against war in Iraq, and you're against war in Palestine.
It's an Orwellian nightmare that a political movement would cloak itself behind distortive words. Does arguing against "Duke Against War" mean you're "for war"? No. But they'd love to make it look like that. That, my friends, is double-plus ungood.
This sort of cloaking is obviously not unprecedented, though. It's the same tack politicians and mafiosos have long since mastered, wherein they dance around the point they intend to make, in order to keep themselves in the discursive clear. No politicians are "anti-abortion"; they're "pro-life." No mob bosses "kill people"; they have people "taken care of." Congressmen and women aren't "cowardly" or "racist"; they're "Democrats" or "Republicans." Duke Against War, consider yourself in good company.
Maybe I'm unnecessarily ascribing pernicious intentions to the leaders of Duke Against War. I'll agree that Duke Against War is a peppier name than Duke Students For Palestine and Against the War in Iraq (DSFPAWI). Maybe that explains the use of a name that doesn't really describe their purpose. I get that. Still, I think they'd be better served by taking a page out of the Duke Bass Fishing Team or Campus Crusade for Christ's handbook and expressly stating their purpose. Might I suggest something with a good acronym, like Duke Organization for Palestinian Emancipation and Yes the War in Iraq Should Halt (DOPEYWISH).
Here's the long and short of it: There are some people who are "pro-Israel" and "anti-war." There are some people who are "pro-Palestine" and "pro-war" (including, but not limited to, the ruling party in the Gaza Strip). I'm tired of seeing either side grasp at these nebulous words in order to gain a good footing. If you're pro-Palestine, call yourself pro-Palestine and get down to the real issues. Dick Cheney and the evil Freemasons who secretly control our government aside, we're all generally "against war."
What's in a name? A lot. And I hope DOPEYWISH catches on soon. Until then, I'll hold firm in my pro-war stance.
Danny Lewin is a Trinity junior. His column runs on Thursdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.