Volume 128, Number 6                            October 21, 2004
Sections

Home

Features

News

Sports

Opinions

Arts

Lifestyles

Archives

View Archives

Contact Subscription Manager

Advertisers

Rate Card

Ad Contract

Contact Ad Manager

Editors

Joy Ulrickson
Editor-in-Chief

Katie Truesdell
News Editor

Cheryl Heitzman
Sports Editor

Elliot Wild
Opinions Editor

Susannah Luthi
Arts Editor

Emily Stack
Arts Editor

Nicole Stanley
Assistant News Editor

Tyler Horning
Photo Editor

Daniel Greene
Web Editor

Opinions
Bush a realist, not romantic



Worse than a fool is someone who pretends to be wise. Last week's article written by Jonathan Dunn proved this point remarkably well. If any of you folks had the patience to plod through it-as I did with great agony-you saw that Dunn composed an anti-imperialist America article that began with a strange and "deep" philosophical probing into the minds of the romantic or "neo-conservative" foreign policy.

First of all, I must confess that I may not have the intellectual depth and prowess of Dunn, who called America a bigamist and a hedonist while somehow connecting these terms to either the War on Terror or to war in general, I'm not sure.

Having said that, I shall quickly analyze three of Dunn's main points and tell you why they are wrong.

Dunn wrote, "The Republican romantics claim that war is their gift to the enslaved peoples of the earth, that by bombing and shooting a man they can make him free."

It is a fact that the United States has liberated and subsequently brought democracy or at least a freer form of government to many nations around the world. Ronaldus Magnus (President Reagan) liberated El Salvador, Grenada, and was in the process of liberating Nicaragua. President Bush I liberated Kuwait from Iraq, an ally to the United States whose people were being raped and pillaged by Saddam's forces while also forcing Iraqi forces out of North Saudi Arabia. Ronaldus also had something to do with collapse of the Soviet Union, an evil empire that has killed at least twenty million people.

I do not have enough space to fully cover each of these cases. Let's look at the liberation of El Salvador. Militarily aided by Reagan's support and in the face of serious threats of domestic terrorism, El Salvadorians lined up outside of voting booths in perilous conditions to change the despotic regime of their government. Dunn would be correct if in the passage I cite above he replaced the word "war" with "liberation."

Dunn's next quote, "George Bush lauds the ways of peace and desires freedom for the world, freedom under God. But, by seeking freedom through fighting, he only disarms what peace already exists."

What peace is Dunn talking about? Is he referring to the "peace" that existed after Islamo-fascists flew planes into our buildings? The "peace" that existed in Iraq, where a tyrant was paying for suicide bombers to attack our ally Israel (at the rate of $25,000 to their families) and wanted to and did redevelop WMDs that he could then sell to terrorists?! Our commander in chief decided to fight the terrorists in the lands from which they spawned. That response doesn't seem romantic-the idea of fighting the enemy-it sounds realistic.

Finally, I implore you the reader to tolerate the citing of one more of his quotes, I know that the degree of cynicism and short-sightedness for which they were written makes their comprehension difficult, but please bear with me.

He writes, "And this is precisely why war cannot bring peace; practice makes perfect. The romantics say that by importing greater violence to Iraq and Afghanistan, conditions of freedom will mysteriously explode into democracy."

History teaches us that the victory of war is often followed by peace. Dunn cited WWII as an example of how war does NOT bring peace by arguing that the devastating weapons developed during the course of WWII outweighed the liberation of Europe! An assertion he made as being self-evident and in no need of explanation. Let's remember that Germany, a country that for two hundred plus years had been a threat to its neighbors, was forced into accepting democracy by the United States and her allies. Japan, a nation where fanaticism was the norm was also coerced into democracy.

I should also note that no nation that America has freed has ever "mysteriously," as Dunn wrote, become a democracy. Nations have become free because many of their inhabitants working together with the United States for their freedom.

Ironically, Dunn's arguments show him to be the "romantic" while reaffirming the philosophy of those that he calls romantics. America has been a source of freedom for millions of people around the world-a fact taken for granted by many-and so obvious that only a intellectual romantic could miss it.

Anthony Mantova is a Hillsdale College senior.