The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Vote “No” on war referendum

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
$$FC (December 6, 2007)
In a bind (December 5, 2007)
Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)

by Badger Herald Editorial Board

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Nobody can question the right of Americans to engage in a dialogue on matters concerning foreign policy. However, there are correct and incorrect ways of conducting that discussion.

Madisonians will go to the polls April 4 and face a referendum posing the question of whether to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq immediately.

Certainly, channels such as referendums should be provided to accommodate public discourse on issues as necessary, but the upcoming choice provided to voters does not take into account the complexity of the situation.

The referendum confines the discussion only to the question of whether troops should be brought home now.

We, like a majority of citizens, have our views on the war. Unfortunately, this referendum does not give voters a chance to actually voice their opinions and speak out on the matter. Rather it only offers the black-and-white choice of "yes" or "no."

Although it would be in the spirit of democracy to maintain a constant, open dialogue regarding an issue that affects so many lives at home and abroad, the approaching poll is not sufficiently comprehensive.

This referendum does not ask voters to offer detailed and thoughtful ideas regarding how to best conclude U.S. involvement in Iraq. Instead, it insults voters with an unrealistically simplistic option for solving a problem wrapped in nuance.

A true forum on the conflict — albeit less feasible — would allow voters to propose their own solutions for the increasingly controversial conflict.

This Board opposes the April 4 referendum on the Iraq War, not because its outcome would be merely symbolic, but because it oversimplifies an extremely complicated issue.

There are potential solutions to the situation in Iraq. Sadly, this referendum does not provide voters with one of them.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Justin Debroux (March 29, 2006 @ 6:31am):

I would like to thank the Badger Herald editorial board for calling on people not to support the referendum. I am a UW student currently in Iraq, and due to limited internet access and time, was not aware of this referendum until today. Besides the obvious reasons of turning such a complicated issue into a yes or no question, there are other reasons to not push the government to bring all troops home now.
I agree many mistakes have been made in the conduct of this war, and I believe as soon as Iraqi Army and police units are up to the task, US and other coalition troops should start to withdraw. From what I am able so see of news back home, however, people do not see what progress is being achieved here. Recently, dozens of Iraqis were killed at a army recruiting station in Baghdad. This event seems to occur much too often. It is often missed in reports though how this shows the dedication and desire of Iraqis to serve their country, though they know they are making themselves targets to the insurgents. This patriotism has been echoed in Iraqi Police I have personally spoken to.
Also, I have seen the increasing level of effectiveness in the Iraqi Army and police since I have been over here. It is my belief the Iraqis will succeed in taking over for our troops. We need to give them the necessary time to do this, then all the troops can come home.

Justin Debroux
UW Madison Senior

Anonymous (March 29, 2006 @ 10:58am):

Or instead of voting no, which would encourage a continued waste of billions of our tax dollars and lead to the deaths of who knows how many more innocent people, you could vote yes and protest the idiotic policies the president has supported toward Iraq.

Robert Freedland (March 29, 2006 @ 2:47pm):

I was interested in reading of the Madison referendum as we here in La Crosse are also asked a similar question, whether the withdrawal of American troops should start immediately starting with the National Guard.

As we think about a resolution to this conflict, there are those that feel that we can depend on the establishment of a functioning democracy prior to departing. Unfortunately, any such Democracy is likely to be of a political nature more along the lines of Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Or perhaps, like the recent decision of the Afghanistan court that was in the process of sentencing an Afghan to death because of his conversion to Christianity, the government to be established will be more along the lines of an Islamic Sharia-based administration. Also not quite acceptable.

I am also concerned about the possible folly of arming and training the Iraqis to "Stand-Up" so we can "Stand-Down" and depart the country. Our experience in arming fighters in this region includes Saddam Hussein himself, who we armed with nerve gas, and Osama bin Laden and his "resistance fighters" who we armed with surface-to-air missiles to resist against their Russian oppressors in Afghanistan. Neither of these attempts at military-building was what I could label a resounding success.

It has been said that if we leave now than the thousands of American dead and wounded will have died in vain. Whether they died in vain or not does not depend on the utterance of the phrase "we made a mistake". Their losses are more related to the reckless pre-emptive attack on a nation that did not possess WMD's, did not pose a threat to our national security, was contained by no-fly zones, and was not involved in the 9/11 attack. Clearly, it will enhance the meaning of their deaths, to send more young American men and women to die as well.

I have also heard that "it is better that we fight them there than fight them here". I believe Dick Cheney has expressed this explanation multiple times, when he himself is not busy hunting or listening to Fox. But this simplistic explanation, which is usually followed by the question "Have you seen any attacks on America since 9/11?" begs the question of whether our foreign policy is actually successful or not. Most studies have demonstrated, and our generals have testified, that our presence itself is a recruiting device for Al Quaeda membership.

The logic behind the "fighting them there" argument brings to mind the old Elephant Joke (I hope most of you readers are old enough to remember these jokes), of the "Why did the elephant paint its toenails different colors?" The answer: "To hide in the bag of M&M's". Which of course is ridiculous. But then comes the punch line....Have you seen any elephants in a bag of M&M's?" and "See, they hide pretty well, don't they?"

So since we haven't found any terrorists in our bags of M&M's, I don't think we can prove that fighting them there is preventing them from fighting them here.

No, what we are finding, is far too many G.I.'s in body bags not M&M candy containers.

I have also heard it argued that to vote for a referendum now would be "bad for morale". Who are these guys kidding? Do they think morale would be better if Americans were voting instead that these brave soldiers should be staying for an indefinite period? Voting to bring them home will only cheer the troops, although it may disappoint the politicians with little at stake personally.