Response to ad from profs omits key details about war

Russell Riggins’ response to the advertisement by the history department concerning America’s involvement in Iraq is hardly the “eloquent discussion” he believes is being defended by our armed forces.

Riggins defends the war in Iraq as multilateral by citing the coalition of 30 nations (this number is actually 35, excluding the United States itself). I would argue, however, that multilateralism means more than having troops from several different countries. It involves active consultation with interested parties and coming to a consensus on foreign policy.

Riggins may be accurate in his assertion that terrorist attacks against American civilians on American soil have halted due to our increased military presence in the Middle East.

But then what, pray tell, is the motivation for increased Hamas terrorist activity, the recent terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, the rising insurgence and terrorist tactics employed by Iraqi citizens, and the scores of other violent attacks directed at America and its supporters in one of the world’s most volatile regions?

Instead of lashing out in a knee-jerk fashion to a piece of political commentary and assuming the worst about its authors, perhaps Riggins should stop and think about the 151 troops who have died since April 1 and their families — or the 753 troops who have sacrificed their lives for a war with fabricated motives and an indeterminate conclusion.

Maybe before pointing to the repression that America has stopped as a sign of victory, it’s time to ask if America’s roadmap for stability will leave Iraqis better off or if a UN-based force is more apt to the task.

We’ve made this mistake several times in American history — the quick-to-the-rescue charge to save innocent people from violence only to find that we lack the resolve, resources, support and ability to prevent those nations from falling into another cycle of bloodshed and tyranny.

Maybe it’s time America admit that its plan in Iraq is misguided and enlist a truly multilateral response.

It’s not unpatriotic or undignified to say that America’s war in Iraq is a senseless failure, especially if the interests of both Iraqi and American citizens are at heart.

Jason Warren

Communication senior

Activists’ work, dedication unfairly targeted in editorial

If the purpose of The Daily’s Monday editorial about Asian American studies was to print such crap that someone would be incited to respond, mission accomplished. I am that someone.

The editorial crossed the border between forgivable idiocy-skepticism and seriously disturbing ignorance.

First, an organization of students banding together to affect change at the administrative level — such as the Asian American Studies Taskforce — is not top-down activism. It’s just the opposite.

Those students are taking time out of their schedules to better the academic landscape at this university.

Second, fewer students major in statistics than minor in Asian American studies. But although the place of statistics as a legitimate discipline is not questioned, it’s apparently acceptable for the editorial board to dismiss the work of the students on the taskforce because of “lack of demand.” That the question of the intellectual integrity of the major was raised betrays the editors’ own doubts about the seriousness of the discipline, doubts that I believe reflect an ethnocentric view of scholarship that presumes as suspect non-Western people and ideas.

The editors’ choice of words underlined the basic problem: a condescending, arrogant tone. The Daily’s editors wrote with open hostility to the hard work and good intentions of fellow students who were working with the administration to affect the change they would like to see. Those students were dismissed out of hand as statistically insignificant. The editors aren’t doing their job if the student newspaper writes off the actual students. In printing the editorial, The Daily seemed as much a rag as that other paper that called Tracy Carson, the former For Members Only coordinator, a fascist.

The Daily’s assault on the proposed major is confusing and upsetting. For shame.

Gregory Phillips

Education junior