war. huh.
January 27, 2003 05:29 PM

Here's the thing.

I'm a leftist, yes. But I am not always anti-war. In fact, I wouldn't even say I'm ever anti-war, because that statement implies that I think war is just a bad thing, period.

And I don't think that. I think war can reap political and economic benefits. I know the legitimate threat of war can solidify someone's commitment to diplomacy.

I have to say that I'm a little angered by certain perspectives that assume that women are inherently anti-war. Here's why: the assumption that I'm anti-war because I'm female presumes one of two things. Either I am female and therefore grander, softer, less warlike - or I am female and therefore a victim and not a perpetrator. The latter is, in part, true. Women are still more likely to be non-combatants, to be innocent bystanders. But, active participant or no, both men and women are killed in war (more men than women, commonly). People are the victims of war.

Maybe a government by women would be less warlike. Maybe we're actually soft, fur-lined pouches. I don't think so.

In any case, I'm simply ambivalent about going to war. I thought bombing Afghanistan wasn't necessarily the appropriate retaliatory act, but that at least it might benefit the Afghani people (that remains to be seen). With Iraq, I suspect some mode of violence will ultimately be called for. I think that action could have some benefits, even as it further destabilizes the Middle East.

What I don't support is unilateral action in a global environment. I find it uniquely frustrating that conservatives - pundits and individuals alike - assume that calling for cooperation with, say, the U.N. is a stall tactic. It's just the proper way to behave on the playground.

Ah, but you don't get to be a pundit by playing well with others.