Chris McDonagh

We must seek the truth, especially when lives are at stake, and we shouldn't unquestioningly believe our government, the media or professors. There are important issues (e.g., the motivations of the United States and other nations, and the war's worldwide effects) that should be debated. But the war is not genocide, terrorism, or racist.

The United States is not committing genocide. Genocide has a specific, legal meaning. The willful erasure or annihilation of Iraqis as a people would be genocide. But neither Sept. 11, nor the unfortunate deaths of Iraqi civilians are genocide. We don't have to trust the U.S. "propaganda machine" on this. On April 10, 2003, the civilian deaths reported (from many non-U.S. sources) on www.iraqbodycount.net were 1,152 (min.)/1,388 (max). Even the 1,388 maximum figure is not "erasure" of the 22 million Iraqis.

Iraqi civilian deaths are as tragic as those of Sept. 11 were. I lack outrage, not because I value Iraqi life less, but because I am thankful the coalition has limited civilian casualties, and believe that overall the Iraqis will be better off after the war than under Saddam (even considering the war casualties). We can all benefit from sharing different perspectives on this, but only if we do so in a reasoned and reasonable manner without ridiculously exaggerating and misstating facts and the law.

There's no evidence the coalition intentionally targets civilians "to terrorize the Iraqi civilian population and squelch their resistance." Proclaiming it to be truth does not make it so. This bizarre idea contradicts the facts and even U.S. critics believe the United States wants to limit civilian casualties to reduce anti-American sentiment in Iraq and the Arab and Islamic worlds. Check out the Pentagon's propaganda mouthpiece, The People's Daily (April 2, 2003, "What Does U.S. Drive at in Iraq War?"), which is critical of U.S. motives, but confirms the United States wants to limit civilian casualties. Civilian casualties will increase, not squelch, resistance. The fact that "hospitals admit 100 cases every hour" (Al Jazeerah.net, April 8, 2003) shows tragic civilian suffering, but also explains it's caused by both Iraqis (intentionally targeting civilians) and coalition forces (U.S. officers trying to avoid civilian casualties).

The indiscriminate anti-Arabism and Anti-Islamism of some idiotic and/or racist Americans is sickening and should never be tolerated. But you can't logically extrapolate the horrific acts of some individuals to the entire country and its foreign policy. Assertions of racism based on people's race, regardless of their motivation, are racist and illogical. The fact the United States is predominantly white and Iraq is not doesn't mean U.S. actions are automatically racist. Following this "logic," any U.S. interaction with a non-predominantly white population is racist, regardless of motivation or effect. While that is an excellent foundation for a limitless anti-U.S. propaganda campaign, it is illogical. Do Iraqi-Americans in Phoenix need mental liberation and "re-education" to understand this is an anti-Arab, anti-Islamic action (See The Arizona Republic, April 9, 2003, "Iraqi exiles express concerns about nation's next government")? Their concerns reflect that U.S. policy is not always perfectly balanced, but it is not rabid anti-Arabism and virulent Anti-Islamism.

The idea that "using disproportionately poor black and brown people to fight this dirty war against other people of color is racist" is catchy, but exaggerates facts and defies logic. Racial/ethnic minorities comprise 38 percent of the U.S. military and 30 percent of the general population. This modest overrepresentation (still less than 60 percent of those fighting) doesn't mean military action against people of color is racist. How would a 70 percent (instead of 62 percent) white military change whether or not the action in Iraq is racist? Should the military tell non-wealthy minority volunteers, "Go away, we have enough poor black and brown people?"

These race-based ideas insult the intelligence, motivation and dedication of minorities in our military. The suggestion they're committing genocide implies they're evil racists, too stupid to know what's happening, or cowards letting it happen. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice both support, and have explained the reasons for, the war. One can argue these are not all the "real" reasons, but it's inaccurate and insulting to accuse them of goose-stepping to join a racist genocide.

I hope we all hunger for the truth. Honest discussion and an open, questioning mind are necessary to find it. But it's a disservice to our academic community to feed us pseudo-intellectual swill (with tidbits of truth) under the guise of "liberating us from the lies of the state."

We must not be afraid of the truth and must work to find it. But that doesn't include unquestioningly embracing proclaimed "truth" not based on facts and critical analysis. Unless, of course, we want to turn this institution of higher learning into an indoctrination camp.

Chris McDonagh is a UA international trade law LL.M. student.