War and emotion

Last year I had a professor, who upon hearing me express support for preemptive war in certain circumstances, suggested with a tinge of outrage, that since I am not planning to enlist, I do not have the moral right to champion deploying others in my stead to defend our country. Still, though it has a tendency to raise my blood pressure, in the quest to appreciate divergent perspectives, I occasionally view MSNBC's "Donahue" program, whose host shares my professor's viewpoint.\nI must confess, the charge carries a certain visceral charm. The genius of their argument becomes readily apparent as their mulish anti-war footing is understood -- its essence, while those who are not enlisted have no moral right to campaign for war, those same people do have the moral footing to crusade against war. It is this convenient logic which permits only those military veterans, or those enlisted to serve, to argue for war, while permitting the remainder of Americans only to argue against it or keep their irritating traps shut. Pretty good odds for currying a prevailing opinion if you are intractably opposed to preemptive conflict.\nConsistent reasoning, I suppose, would find that the opinions of non-police inner city residents should be summarily dismissed when they urge greater police surveillance of their own violent drug ravaged neighborhoods. After all, those citizens are not willing to put on a uniform and risk death by confronting the drug dealers themselves.\nOf course, any good parent would, and should, be reticent to volunteer their child from rushing into a crumbling inferno -- literally or figuratively. Does this mean that we should not dispatch our firemen to fight fires? \nOf course not. \nSaddam Hussein's regime is one of our nation's many present fires. Despite the anxiety that the caring parents, children, and spouses of our soldiers are certain to harbor, the fire burns, and must be extinguished. \nIf our services were comprised of draftees -- that would be a different issue. However, presently our military is comprised of willing volunteers. When policemen, firemen, astronauts, choose their career paths, they individually assume the risks of their profession. No one wants anyone to get hurt, but for the benefit of security, fire safety, and space exploration, these brave individuals, after careful consideration, occasionally have to undertake significant risks. \nOur incredibly brave and admirable United States soldiers may soon face the risks they accepted when they first enlisted. I hope they never have to, but this hope is daily diminished by Hussein's uncooperative actions.\nAs Chief U.N. Weapons "Inspector" Hans Blix noted recently, "It's clear (Iraq) has violated the bans of the United Nations in terms of imports … Iraq must do more than they have done so far in order to make this a credible avenue."\nWhile undeniably there exist legitimate counterweights to the benefits of a war to liberate Iraq, contemporary anti-war advocates all too often recede from the logical and into this and similar emotional outbursts, ultimately undermining their cause in the process. Their dissenting opinion is invaluable in a functioning democracy, but the potentially powerful contribution of a cogent dissent quickly becomes muted when drowned out by the current parade of trite and unreflective emotional pleas.\nThen again, perhaps the dissenters are somewhat correct and we should only permit military members to decide when we go to war. Somehow, I suspect the professor, Donahue, and sympathizers would rethink their stance upon revelation of those poll results.