Consequences
In the political aftermath of the war on Iraq,
there seems to be no shortage of whining by those
who opposed the war and are now facing the
consequences. Celebrities like Natalie Maines of
the Dixie Chicks and Bruce Springsteen cry
censorship because they feel they have been
"punished" for expressing their antiwar sentiments.
Countries like Canada and France express
indignation that their tourism industries have
suffered so much as a result of their opposition to
the war. France, Russia and Germany—not to
mention Kofi Annan and the U.N.—complain about
being left out of the reconstruction efforts in
Baghdad.
What these individuals and entities don't seem
to grasp is the fundamental concept that taking a
stand involves sacrifice. If one expresses an
unpopular opinion, there may be repercussions.
Stating an opinion without expecting to pay any
consequences if it should prove unpopular is called
lip service. Such consequences are not censorship
or punishment. They're sacrifices to accept if one
wishes to stand by one's opinion.
Our friends at WildHare.com
eloquently opined on this issue with regard to
celebrities like Maines and Springsteen (see
"Madonna Doesn't Get It Either"). The Dixie Chicks
achieved their fame and fortune thanks to a legion
of fans who bought their CDs and sold out their
concerts. Those same fans have the power to unmake
them. If Maines wants to express an unpopular
opinion about President Bush, she has every right
to do so. If her fans burn her CDs and radio
stations give the band the boot in response, that's
just more freedom of expression. It's not
censorship. And it's definitely not un-American, as
Springsteen alleged.
It's about as American as apple pie and
lawsuits.
This logic applies equally to the falloff in
tourism revenue in countries like France and Canada
that opposed war. If their leaders take an
unpopular stance that angers tourists enough to
keep them away, then that's a consequence that the
people of those countries have to live with. If
they're unhappy about it, they should have the
opportunity to do something about it in their next
election. Again, it's not "punishment," it's an
expression of freedom, a freedom of choice, a
choice not to spend tourism dollars in countries
that express anti-American sentiment.
Similarly, countries that opposed
war—despite agreeing in principle to the use
of force in Resolution 1441—now have to eat
crow. They had the freedom to decline to
participate in the war (though it could be
argued
that U.N. Security Council member nations had the
responsibility to participate), but they now have
to accept whatever role (or lack thereof) that is
given to them in a postwar reconstruction effort.
Specialists in international law can argue over
whether the U.N. is legally entitled to have a
role, but the organization—and its members who
opposed the war—effectively washed their hands
of Iraq by refusing to enforce Resolution 1441.
Disallowing their participation in reconstruction
efforts does not invalidate their antiwar stances
or punish their lack of cooperation. Rather, it
allows the 50+ countries whose men and women
fought, bled in and supported the war against
Saddam to be the ones to contribute to the
reconstruction effort.
The have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too mentality
pervading the postwar political arena reveals a
hypocrisy common in the antiwar movement. Opponents
of the war take a moral stand, but don't want to
put their money where their mouth is. Even worse,
most refuse to even admit they were wrong.
Outspoken celebrity Janeane Garofalo promised
commentator Bill O'Reilly that she would "go to the
White House on [her] knees on cut glass and
say, 'Hey, you were right, I shouldn't have doubted
you'" if Iraqis celebrated their liberation and
hugged American soldiers. That's exactly what
happened, but Garofalo has yet to pay a visit
to the White House. The U.N. has lost much of its
legitimacy; activist celebrities have lost what
little credibility they ever had; countries that
opposed the war have become marginalized. They've
been proven wrong, but they still cling to whatever
shreds of dignity they can muster. Perhaps one day
they will admit we did the right thing.
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
What is "The Daily Strick"?
I have long called
myself a writer, but too often I don't do
what a writer must do daily: write. So
you, dear reader, are the beneficiary of
my resolution to make a positive change in
at least one area of my life. Every single
day of this new year, I will write
something, anything, and post it here. It
is my intention to use this daily exercise
to jump-start my too-long-dormant creative
energies, and perhaps generate some
worthwhile material this year. Hopefully
you will find at least an occasional
amusement or insight in my daily
musings.
Today's
Column
Send
a Comment
Previously...
4/24:
Lemon
Curry?
4/23:
My
Father Midas
4/22:
Earth
Day
4/21:
Joshua
Tree, Part III
4/20:
Joshua
Tree, Part II
4/19:
Joshua
Tree, Part I
4/18:
Royal
Flush
4/17:
A
Long Strange Trip
4/16:
A
New Line to Back
4/15:
Still
Writing
4/14:
Conspiracy
Theory
4/13:
Los
Coronados
4/12:
Y2K
in Y2K3
4/11:
Slow
Glass
4/10:
Freedom
of Speech
4/9:
Why
We're Fighting
4/8:
Eucalyptus
Memories
4/7:
Sleep
4/6:
Writing,
Just Not Here
4/5:
Sci-Files
Trivia
4/4:
Sobering
Up
4/3:
Great
White Hope
4/2:
Entropy
4/1:
Peace
on Earth
Previous months in
The
Archive
Like what you've
read?
Find more good reading on
(and support future Daily Stricks!)
|
|
