Hurst’s views on anti-war protestors
misguided
I felt compelled to write about the stunning lack of logic
displayed by Kenneth Hurst in his submission “Any means of
defense justified” (Sept. 30).
The agenda of the anti-war protestors was to denounce an unjust
and unnecessary war. That was all. Hurst even admits the war was
“poor military strategy.” It is a war that makes no
sense and has done more harm than good to our attempts to eliminate
terrorism and make America safe once again. The war in Iraq has
strengthened the terrorists and weakened our stature in the
international community, which in turn has decreased our safety
from terrorist attacks.
Like Hurst, I also believe that prematurely exiting Iraq would
only worsen the situation by giving terrorists free reign and
plunging Iraq into a deadly civil war. However, that doesn’t
mean the people responsible for beginning this senseless war
shouldn’t be held accountable, or that realistic criteria and
deadlines for leaving Iraq shouldn’t be set.
Ironically, the submission provides an excellent argument for
the use of terrorism. To the terrorists we are the attackers. By
the logic of the submission, the terrorists are just asserting
their “absolute right to use whatever means (they deem)
necessary” to defend themselves.
I also find his apparent desire to carpet bomb Iraq without
regard for civilian lives deeply misguided.
If we begin to kill innocent civilians who have played no part
in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, then we are no different than the
terrorists. By using the same tactics as the terrorists, we will
only open up ourselves to more attacks and form a much larger pool
of people who can be recruited for suicide bombings.
Brian Keyashian
Fifth-year, electrical engineering