War begins, debate ends

Now that the war with Iraq has officially begun, many critics of the administration and/or the invasion are left wondering what to do.

Eric Alterman, editor of Altercation at MSNBC, had an interesting comment on his blog yesterday.

“For me, the antiwar movement such as it was, is over,” Alterman said. “We lost. It’s time to wish the best for our soldiers and the victims of this war focus on building a better future.”

Now bear in mind that Alterman was one of the biggest critics of the war I’ve seen. When many Dems started hesitating immediately after Colin Powell’s February address to the U.N., Alterman said it didn’t matter because the Bush administration is inherently dishonest, and as such, Powell’s evidence was inconsequential. In other words, Alterman pulled no punches.

Yet here was Alterman yesterday basically telling the anti-war folks to just move on. That may seem a little harsh to some, but I really couldn’t agree more.

Critics of varying degrees — from Kucinich types who think the war is illegal, to Dean types who didn’t see Iraq as a threat, to Tough Doves who saw the risks outweighing the benefits — gave it their best shot. They laid out a strong case for why an Iraqi invasion was unwise, they held some well-attended rallies, and they organized some impressive grassroots activism. Their side lost — Bush wasn’t listening — and war has begun.

I saw some websites as recently as Tuesday with notices saying “it’s not too late” to try and stop the war. Well, actually it was too late.

It seems there’s a temptation from some to continue these arguments now that the war is at hand. Not only is this counterproductive, it quickly becomes nonsensical. Rehashing all the reasons a preemptive war against Iraq is a bad idea doesn’t make any difference once the war is underway.

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle highlighting two very different approaches Democrats can take right now. One highlights a lawmaker looking serious and mature, while leaving another representative looking ridiculous.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), according to the article, continues to believe that the president is making “a dangerous decision,” but believes it’s time to put those criticisms aside. “It’s our young people who will be in jeopardy,” Miller said. “They are the ones who are on the firing line. Now that the decision has been made to go to war, they are entitled to our full support.”

Now contrast Miller’s remarks with Rep. Pete Stark, a Democratic member of Congress from San Francisco.

The Chronicle article quotes Stark implying that Bush was engaging in his a form of terrorism by launching this invasion. “‘I think unleashing 3,000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war…to me, if those were unleashed against the San Francisco Bay Area, I would call that an act of extreme terrorism,” Stark said.

Even if Stark believes this, who does he think he’s helping with these remarks? Comments like his will be appearing soon, no doubt, in GOP fundraising mail, right-wing bulletin boards, and talk radio discussions. Republican leaders in Congress are already tarring war skeptics as “unpatriotic” in disgusting displays of exploitation; Stark is only making their jobs easier.

I believe that opponents of the war should enthusiastically support those men and women who volunteered to serve in our military. Whether one approves of their mission is less important than the sacrifice they are willing to make. Critics of the war and the administration need not be silent as war is waged, nor apologize for sincere concerns about the administration’s perilous undertaking. They should, however, remain mindful of the seriousness of war and the consequences of disparaging a military action while it is being executed. As violence subsides and post-war plans unfold, it will be Bush’s detractors who rightfully speak out to ensure that the administration follows through on its commitments to rebuild a free, stable Iraq.