On Tuesday, the Undergraduate Student Association Council
rejected a resolution supporting the swift return of U.S. troops in
Iraq by a 2-8-0 vote. The justification council members gave for
rejecting the resolution was its subtle pro-war slant. Council
members did not want support for U.S. troops to be confused as
support for the war effort itself.
Council’s reasons for rejecting the resolution were
justified. There is a clear difference between supporting the
troops and supporting war. But the fact that the council did not
pass any resolution at all in support of the troops is greatly
disappointing.
As elected officials, council members have an obligation to be a
voice for the student body and comment on the issues of our day
affecting students most. And while many students argue national
issues are too great for the council to tackle, or even comment on,
USAC did not stray from campus issues or sacrifice more
“pressing” student needs to debate the proposed
resolution. Maintaining awareness of campus issues and working to
address them is not mutually exclusive with commenting on world
occurrences of great social importance.
During fall quarter, USAC passed a resolution condemning the
then potential war in Iraq. Because of the resolution, UCLA
students know their student government does not support the reason
why troops are fighting in Iraq. But because many troops are
connected to UCLA students through family or friends, it is
important that USAC express appreciation for those troops and hope
for their safe and swift return home. Troops with connections to
UCLA should know they have the student body’s support even if
USAC does not support the war itself. Troops are people asked or
coerced to effect military decisions, not make them ““ they do
not deserve to be stigmatized for poorly thought-out actions by the
federal government.
No one who opposes the war can honestly say they do not wish
safety for fellow Americans in harm’s way. This resolution
was not as complex as the one to decry war in Iraq passed in the
fall. But what should have taken only five minutes of the
council’s time to approve, has already been discussed at two
meetings without a successful passage. Rather than debating
contentious language, the situation should have been remedied with
discussion and amendments, or at the very least, the council should
have made it a goal to draft a new resolution with more clear-cut
language for the next council meeting. No council member came
forward since the past week to help revise the resolution into
something more in line with USAC’s anti-war commitment.
Facilities Commissioner Adam Pearlman, who proposed the
resolution, could have been more cooperative, too, by making sure
the resolution’s language was consistent with USAC’s
already stated decisions on war. Unless Pearlman was trying to get
USAC to support the war indirectly, he should have drafted a
straightforward resolution supporting the safe return of the
troops, leaving the war out. And though some parts of the
resolution spoke to this effect, not all of it did.
USAC will now be on the record as voting down a resolution to
support U.S. troops, because the resolution was mired in suspicious
subtleties. The resolution should have simply summed up sentiment
in four words: “We support our troops.” It’s not
that difficult a task.