Vantage Point: University community must engage Iran hawks
Robert Polhemus
BY ROBERT POLHEMUS
It's been a cliché that college students, not worried about a draft, have been apathetic about the historic disaster of Bush's Iraq "war of choice." That idea is now dead.
To the hundreds of students and others who turned out April 21 on such short notice in front of the Hoover Institution to protest peacefully the president's war policies, I say thanks and congratulations for the timely wake-up call to the university community. Those who have objected to the student gathering at the Hoover might do well to consider the amazing, unprecedented fact that literally millions and millions of thoughtful, patriotic citizens believe that this president is the worst and most dangerous one in our history. And, on matters of life and death, they do not know how to reach him or influence him in any way.
The remarkable Stanford demonstration is crucial evidence of just how worried people are—not only about the failed old war in Iraq, but about a shaky administration that mumbles and leaks about attacking Iran and keeping our first-strike nuclear bombing options "on the table." If American citizens don't work to stop it, the menacing possibility of another "war of choice" and air strikes against Iran can lead to a dire reality even worse than the Iraq calamity—one whose deadly fallout for ourselves, our children and indeed for global civilization would seem, sooner or later, to be inevitable.
It is a matter of urgency to avoid precipitous, rash military action against Iran; such a move would have unpredictable consequences. In the last year, this university has determined to use new educational resources to address and try to solve pressing international problems. None looms larger now than relations between the United States and Iran; none should have a more important claim on Stanford's attention, expertise, organizational energy and resources. All of us here—students, faculty and staff—who care about the future, peace and the real interests of this nation need to pay attention to the Iran issue, inform ourselves about it, make it personal, understand that it isn't going to go away soon and insist that it be resolved peacefully and intelligently.
Thoughtful diplomatic strategies need be devised and then very patiently employed. Despite the propaganda of soft-thinking, attack-Iran-now proponents, the most relevant historical war analogy now is not with 1938 (shoulda-stopped-Hitler-at-Munich) but with 1914 (shoulda-muzzled-the-guns-of-August-after-the-Sarajevo-assassination, in which case there would have been no Munich). The Iran matter has the real potential to do to the 21st century what Europe stumbling needlessly into World War I, with its ghastly slaughter of populations and unforeseen historical effects (the Russian revolution, fascism, Hitler, Stalin, World War II, the Holocaust, atomic weapons, the cold war, etc.), did to the whole 20th century.
Whatever their feelings or ideas before the Iraq war, most people in their objective moments can see that it's been catastrophic. Despite the natural, if icy, self-justification of a few frozen egos in power that got it wrong and can't admit it (surely true patriotism means, sometimes, having to say you're sorry), it's obvious that the invasion and occupation have done very grave damage. The war has caused an obscene, unnecessary amount of death and ruin. It has produced an unstable client state that looks to be dissolving in the violent wash of "ethnic cleansing" and a gusher of oil greed.
Draining our resources, it has set loose a gigantic hemorrhage of billions of bloody dollars sinking uselessly in devastated ground (or dirty pockets)—money that Americans could and should be spending positively on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (such as developing alternative energy sources). It seems now to have led only to the prospect of a semi-perpetual occupation by U.S. garrisons based in semi-permanent colonial bases.
The Iraq war has made the United States and all countries less safe from violence and terror. It has hardened anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, hurt Israel and alienated people all over the world on whom the cooperation necessary to expose terrorism depends. It has been a boon for the forces of fanatic religious militancy, intolerance and apocalyptic extremism of all kinds in the Middle East and everywhere. It has divided our country and sapped the broad-based political confidence and sense of the common good on which a flourishing democracy finally depends. It has strengthened, not lessened or controlled, the determination and ability of war-threatened populations and demagogic leaders to seek and possess nuclear weapons (because, supposedly, they serve as the great equalizer and insurance policy in disputes with mightier nations), and it has weakened the ability to stop them.
The dogs of this irresponsible, morally shoddy war were loosed by ax-grinding civilian ideologues who relied on misinformation and lies (Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction) and worked hard and effectively to make the public erroneously believe that 9/11 had something to do with Iraq. Their arrogant plans lacked both common sense and foresight. Iraq was sold as some sort of national response to 9/11 and to the murderousness of Osama bin Laden (who was, in fact, an ideological enemy of Saddam Hussein). The Bush administration launched it with astonishingly little serious, informed discussion in the media, in public forums or in representative political bodies.
Such a thing must not happen again, no matter what is said about the obnoxious rhetoric of Iran's leaders. The protests and analytical arguments by Stanford faculty and students against the Iraqi war three years ago proved to be amazingly accurate—right on the money—but, like the Iraq antiwar movements across the nation, they came too late. Now we have a healthy new public skepticism about this administration's competence and—let's hope—a bit of time to put the intellectual argument against bombing—"nuking," as one contingency planner allegedly said—or invading Iran, and also against the folly of keeping large numbers of troops in the Middle East as imperialist enforcers. The university is a great place to make that case.
In the coming days and months moving into and through the summer and autumn, the Stanford community needs to focus on the Middle East and American ideals and interests. Especially, the goal should be to work to educate ourselves and others about all facets of the Iran problem—religious, psychological, historical, ethnic and anthropological, as well as the geopolitical, economic and military—and to do our bit to keep it from exploding. These are historic times. In democracy, which our nation wants to promote, it is up to the people to be the deciders.
Robert Polhemus, a professor of English, holds the Joseph S. Atha Professorship in Humanities. He is currently the Ellen Andrews Wright Fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center.