At What Price?

I read a really good piece on the Huffington Post by Mark LeVine, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History at UC Irvine. While LeVine himself is a controversial figure (as Leftist academics tend to be more than their Rightist counterparts), I just want to focus on this particular article. He charges the anti-war protesters in general (and academics in particular) of making no effort to actually go to Iraq, learn about the situation first-hand, and take meaningful action at a time when it might have made a difference. It's a very interesting read, and I hope you'll check it out.

I derive a larger issue than can be applied to both sides of the war debate. The question needs to be asked: Where is the sacrifice, apart from the soldiers fighting the war and their families? In WWII, everybody was involved in the war effort. Great heroes went to fight overseas, while Rosie the Riveter kept industry churning at home. Supplies were rationed, infrastructure and farms were used for the cause, and not a single citizen was unaffected in some way. Things were different in the Vietnam War, because there was far from unanimous acceptance. But there was still a draft, so most young men were subject to being called into action. However, exception were made for the most educated, privileged or well-connected, so a wartime dichotomy occurred for the first time where some people had to make real sacrifices, while others were happy to be cheerleaders for the war while tending to "other priorities". These were the formative years of the modern Chickenhawks. Now, the U.S. military is all-volunteer. And while there are plenty of recruits who truly want to serve their country, and while I don't doubt the patriotism of anybody who has enlisted, most are there as a means of achieving a better life. Overwhelmingly, it is young men and women from the lower end of the economic classes that enlist, and they are the ones making the ultimate sacrifice. In the meantime, the rest of the population goes on with their lives as if there is no war being fought. The wealthiest ones, who have the most to lose if the terrorists "win", are paying less taxes and losing no children. So I ask anybody who supports this war, what have you given up personally to ensure its success?

But this is the very question that LeVine is asking those opposed to the war. What are they willing to sacrifice in order to oppose this action? Are pro-peace professors willing to take a sabbatical from their cushy jobs in ivory towers to actually witness what's happening on the ground? Is the average anti-war citizen willing to engage in civil disobedience and put themselves at risk if the cause is so important to them? It is definitely a valid question.

I'll have to remember some time to expand on my own views about this war. But it's getting pretty late. This blog isn't important enough for me to sacrifice sleep over.