In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent start of the war effort being waged, emotions have been high on college campuses. Self-appointed \progressive peace coalitions"" have spoken out against the U.S. campaign, decrying it as an act of aggression against the weak. This all presupposes an idea: that war is inherently unprogressive. To better understand the state the world is in, we must re-examine some ideas, and, from a liberal perspective, ask the question: Is war inherently unprogressive and is peace always the right choice?
We must determine what ""progressive"" means. One of our country's greatest presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, said society must be organized around four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and, most relevant to this case, freedom from fear. The freedom from fear dictates respect for life, property rights and strong police, military and other forces that effectively guarantee the safety of the people while at the same time not unnecessarily infringing on the other three freedoms. Thus we have a definition of progressivism: that which upholds these freedoms is progressive; that which violates them is unprogressive. Can war be a means to achieve such goals and can peace be detrimental to them?
In the past, there were wars fought for the attainment of these freedoms. Lincoln fought to extend them to slaves; to not fight the South and preserve the Union would have meant the preservation of slavery and its eventual extension into more and more territories. In that situation, to live in peace with the insurgent Confederacy would have been an unprogressive action in the highest degree, and the war waged the progressive option.
In the early 1940s, American isolationists preached against going to war with Nazi Germany, saying that it was an unjustifiable extension of our nation into others' business to interfere in Europe's affairs. At the same time, advocates of war discussed the atrocities of Hitler's Third Reich, and stated that, if not stopped, it would conquer Europe and threaten more and more people. In that case, a war against fascism, which violated every last one of the four freedoms in the most egregious ways, was the progressive option, as it would prevent the oppression of future Nazi victims, while choosing peace was truly anti-progressive.
Thus, war is not inherently unprogressive if fought to preserve these freedoms from an outside threat, nor is peace automatically a progressive option if to choose it would allow such a threat to grow stronger. Let us examine our current situation and see how all this applies.
In our modern day, we face Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the Taliban government that aids them. They actively persecute those who oppose them, violating the first freedom. Their harsh, theocratic regime imposes an extremist religion by the sword in violation of the second freedom. The third is broken by the leaders' theft from the people, living in luxury while the people suffer. The fourth freedom is abridged on a daily basis (ask any woman who lives there) and they have declared war against the democratic world, causing fear of being in a tall building or an airplane and even opening one's mailbox. To oppose war against them is, effectively, to be complacent about these practices, and encourages their continuation and extension to other places as well, into our lives. Every day they are permitted to continue their reign of terror, more people will die, more will contract deadly diseases and the four freedoms will diminish'speech and religion hazardous, want and fear prevalent.
In short, to wage war now is not only the progressive choice. The very existence of a ""peace coalition"" to oppose this crusade is, without a shadow of a doubt, anti-progressive. They do not deserve a sympathetic ear from liberals, but full censure and condemnation.
