In Defense of Ambivalence

Despite my limited attention to current events, I took it for granted that I was anti-war. War is bad. And besides, I had the assurance of my friends, my music, and even a substantial chunk of Europe. But when the protests began, I realized that I had been suffering from a bit of political peer-pressure. Seeing so many people from around the world unite against the war, made me want to join the movement, to share their passion. So I decided to research the subject with more depth than a daily glance at the headlines and the occasional punk rock rant.

However, after looking beyond the romantic notion of hipster activists vs. greedy republicans, I realized I could not wholeheartedly subscribe to the anti-war position. The more I read, the more divided I became. War is bad, but so is dictatorship. And while the protesters were busy pointing out the hypocrisy of "war for peace", I could not ignore that their alternative was a dictator who, regardless of his threat to America, has slaughtered his own people. Given a choice of evils, my question became quantitative: Which course of action will hurt the least people?

War will surely cause casualties and increase anti-American sentiment. But if even a small fraction of what is said about Saddam is true, his removal would be justified. Installing a democracy in Iraq could hugely benefit the Iraqi people, and possibly even the rest of the Middle East. The debate could go on forever, and it often feels as though it has. Both sides have compelling arguments but neither offer a just solution. And so I am ambivalent, although not apathetic, towards the war.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.