Monday, January 03, 2005
Comforting The Enemy?
1) By using the phrase "providing comfort" it is assumed that the "enemy" actually needs comfort. However, in the case of an "enemy" like the Iraqi "insurgents"(or whatever you want to call the people fighting the illegal occupation of their nation) or any nation that is preemptively attacked without any verified justification, can these people really need a motivating reason to fight back? Just the fact that they are attacked for no reason and become the victims of that attack is enough to spur these people to action. The attack itself is the motivating factor in them fighting back, not antiwar feelings among people in the attacking nation. If the United States was attacked like Iraq, do you think we would need the moral support of an antiwar movement in the attacking nation? I personally don't think so!
2) How can antiwar movements provide comfort to the "enemy" when technically there really is no "enemy". In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, or just about every other war ever waged where the powerless people are pitted against each other by their leaders, the "enemy" is usually the people of another nation who we really have no beef with, other than what the government tells us to believe. In other words, without government prodding, we would have no "enemy" to begin with. Wars generally cannot be waged by "democratic" societies unless the government presents a clear case for war. What is comes down to time and again is the government actually creates the "enemy" necessary for war. Antiwar movements humanize the "enemy" and thus take away some or all of its demonic features. Images of enemy dead and destruction are kept away from the public so that it will not possibly come to sympathize with the "enemy."
3) Antiwar forces do not provide comfort to the "enemy" as much as they provide discomfort for our lying leaders. Most antiwar sentiment is based on the truth of the matter- is there really a reason for war or is there another way to resolve the situation or does the situation exist at all? These are questions that would put a hurdle in the road to wars if they were ever allowed to be asked and considered by the people of the attacking nation. Obviously, as in the case of the Iraq attack, questions could not be entertained by a government that was riding a multitude of lies to wage war. Anyone who gets in the way of this march to war is branded a traitor or un-American for endangering there nation by appeasing an "enemy".
4) By stating that antiwar forces are "comforting the enemy", the war makers are in effect making these people enemies. President Bush's "you are for us or against us" statement a few years back typifies this mentality. In an environment like this, opposing a war makes someone an enemy in the eyes of the misinformed and misled population. There actually is NO proof that antiwar forces are comforting the enemy. This is just a ploy to further besmirch the antiwar forces that would hinder the war effort by casting doubts in peoples' minds.
Pro-war zealots always seem to have numerous phrases and terms to throw at people who dissent with their policies. Unfortunately, most wars involve "enemies" that are strictly defined by the state and nothing else. People do not want to fight and die in wars or have to send their kids to die, either. Ironically, by blindly following government dictates we ARE providing comfort to the "enemy", and that enemy is any government which abuses its own people for its own greedy ends!