Conservative Student News

Photo credit: www.evolvefish.com

F.I.R.E, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is an organization dedicated to defending the rights of individuals in higher learning. Often F.I.R.E defends the liberties of conservative students being repressed within the walls of liberal academia. I became familiar with F.I.R.E through a Leadership Institute training workshop a couple of years ago; while I found their organization to be very impressive, I hoped I would never need their services. I am openly conservative and I rarely hesitate to share my many opinions, but I honestly never thought that speaking my mind would get me into trouble.

So, when I received a bad grade last month on an opinion paper for a class, I was tempted to give F.I.R.E a call. However, I've calmed down a little since then, and I've decided to handle my unfair treatment on my own. To get the vindication I desired, I decided to publish my paper in the St. Thomas Standard in tandem with this issue's "sticker of the month."

The instructions that I received from my professor for this assignment were as follows: "The argument paper is to be 4-5 pages in length, double-spaced. The paper should concisely delineate an issue in the Great Decisions briefing book, to be followed by your own views on the issue. Please feel free to be critical of the ideas you read. The purpose of this assignment is for each student to further develop his/her own viewpoints on an issue of global concern." The professor also told the class orally that citing other sources was not necessary or required. I followed these instructions exactly, yet that wasn't enough to earn a high score from this professor.

When my paper was returned to me, I had been graded down because the professor did not like my conservative stance on the Iraq War. Her rationale for assigning me a low grade was quite evident in her numerous intolerant comments, scribbled in every open margin of my paper.

For your reading pleasure, here is the document that earned me a plethora of strife from my left-wing instructor and deserves a badge of honor from the vast right-wing conspiracy!

My class paper: For the past decade or more, since the initial terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the USS Cole during the Clinton presidency, the Middle East has been an issue in the forefront of American minds. These distant countries and their people intrigue us, worry us, and alarm us for a plethora of reasons. Interestingly though, the average American knows very little about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. but almost everyone has a strong opinion about what America should or should not do in that region!

After Sept. 11, 2001 when the United States launched its War on Terrorism (with overwhelming bi-partisan support from Congress) the American people rallied behind the effort and championed the decision to remove Saddam Hussein & the Taliban from power. However, when peace, freedom, and democracy did not occur immediately or simultaneously, Americans became extremely impatient. Now, the War on Terrorism is being called "a failure," and citizens and politicians alike are calling for immediate American withdrawal from the region.

The current situation is not black & white or cut & dry; impulsively pulling out of the Middle East (especially Iraq & Afghanistan) will only make the current problems more severe. The War on Terrorism is not the failure that Great Decisions and other commentaries repeatedly claim that it is. The true problem lies with the American people who have lost confidence in the mission and are looking for the quickest, easiest way out. But if this dilemma in the Middle East is ever going to be solved, the American people need to realize that if they don't have anything constructive or useful to say, they should settle down and shut up!

When President George W. Bush declared that "failure (in Iraq) is not an option," he meant it! And in all of those speeches and press conferences when he said that "America will stay the course in Iraq," that should have been a glaring hint that the Middle East is a problem that is not quickly solvable. Iraq is not just a little "boo-boo" that you can put a band-aid on and forget about!

Our President clearly understood the long-term nature of our stay in Iraq, but I'll admit he could have done a better job of helping the general public understand his rationale. From Sept. 12, 2001 the Bush Administration should have made it unquestionably clear that America was going to be at war for many years. The American people should have known from the very beginning that the War on Terrorism was going to be an unremitting endeavor. America's approach to Iraq should have been like the position we held with Germany after World War I: To this very day, America has a military presence in Germany and our diplomatic relations with them have improved exceedingly since 1918! Why is it such an outrage that the U.S.-Iraq situation should be any different?

Great Decisions says of the Middle East, "the region poses enormous challenges to the U.S. that are likely to accelerate rather than attenuate in the years to come" (p. 5). This being the case, why is it so upsetting to imagine U.S. troops in Iraq & Afghanistan in 2090?

History will have to be the judge of how successful the War on Terrorism was, because currently it is too soon to boldly declare it a failure! It seems so asinine for Great Decisions to assert that: "U.S. foreign policy experts now recognize that the U.S. attempt to reshape Iraq into a peaceful democracy has failed" (p.8). Where did they find these so-called "experts" to make such comments? Wouldn't any true "expert" be able to see that you cannot transform chaos into order overnight?

Almost every public school in America teaches students that the earth evolved from nothing into something over billions and billions of years; yet the same schools are teaching the same students that the War on Terrorism is a failure because in six years, a significant something has not evolved!

No one ever bothers to remind people that the Taliban was in fact overthrown and that Saddam Hussein actually was ousted and executed for his crimes against humanity! Those two accomplishments alone should be enough to convince Americans that our presence in the Middle East is effective. Sadly though, Americans would rather take the negative approach, calling Iraq a quagmire and chanting "Bush Lied, People Died" in a strange effort to make themselves feel better.

Additionally, very little praise is given for the free elections that were held in Iraq or the military force of Iraqi citizens that is growing rapidly. According to Great Decisions, "As for the army, while progress has been made in training and equipping it, almost all units remain dependent on U.S. military support" (p.9). But isn't this dependency on the U.S. a good thing? Why do the media spin information regarding the Iraq War in a negative light, instead of portraying it as the positive that it really is?! If Iraqi citizens are willing to volunteer in the Iraq military and are excited about participation and training with the American troops, doesn't that say quite a bit about their commitment to establishing a new and free Iraq? It sure does!

Great Decisions also asserts some pretty audacious opinions about the number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed during this war. First of all, "the number of Iraqi citizens killed" is literally immeasurable: Who is considered an Iraqi citizen (do insurgents, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc. count)? What is meant by "killed" (friendly-fire, death due to Americans, death due to terrorism, etc.)? As for the number of American troops killed, comparatively speaking, the numbers are extremely low for war casualties. Less than 3,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives in the past six years during the War on Terrorism. On average, that is 500 troops per year. During the Vietnam War (which lasted 16 years), America lost a total of 58,000 troops; that is an average of 3,650 per year! So, for those who even dare to make a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, they should probably dare to consider the facts first.

Iraq is not a quagmire, but it isn't a quick-fix either. The problems that Iraq has with insurgents, terrorists, and sectarian violence can be compared to a basement with a severe mold, milder, and rust problem. Spraying a little air freshener, leaving the room, and closing the door is not going to make the problem go away. Withdrawing completely from the infested area will only cause the problem to multiply more rapidly.

The dilemma will not be solved without a harsh cleanser and some intense elbow-grease. The strategy of the United States toward Iraq needs to be better explained to the American people and the world. The citizens of the world need to be fully aware of the implications of a "rotten basement," and they need to be enlightened about the proper way to eradicate such a mess. As Great Decisions states, "changes in U.S. policy, including a concerned effort to lower expectations, have already begun. Rather than emphasizing the creation of a democracy in Iraq, the focus will likely shift to the establishment of a relatively secure and stable Iraq" (p. 10).

Maybe if the American people realized that U.S. troops will be in the Middle East for several decades they would stop their uninformed belly-aching and start seeing the positive aspects of a consistent U.S. presence there. Maybe people would be more understanding if they were aware that "the U.S. is deeply involved in Iraq, and extrication will take patience, skilled diplomacy and, perhaps most of all, a candid appraisal of the situation" (p.11). Regardless though, forbearance is essential; because if patience is a virtue, Americans are being pretty virtue-less.

Back to my teacher's comments on this paper: My professor's final comment was an offer to let me re-write my paper. She must have thought she could scare me into becoming a liberal or at least writing like one. I accepted the bargain hoping that it would yield a better grade, but I refused to relinquish my principles in the second draft. I was not going to back away from my beliefs just to appease her. But, I changed the title, removed all "inappropriate" terminology, eliminated any "offensive" exclamation points, and I added some punchy quotes.

I figured that if she didn't like my opinions about why we should be in Iraq, then maybe she would prefer hearing pro-Iraq war commentary from some high-ranking liberal politicians. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer really helped solidify my arguments!

In my first paper, the professor told me to "get the facts straight;" but in the second document, which was chocked full of researched quotations from reputable sources, she declared "You should rely more on your own ideas rather than having to rely on all of those quotes to get your point across." Honestly! What does this woman want from me?! I was required to write an opinion paper, which I did (twice), and I was reprimanded both times for my views.

Apparently dissent is only allowed when it's the liberals doing the dissenting. Regardless, when I get knocked down, I get up again. It's like what President Bush said in a recent speech: "I am not going to forsake my principles to be the popular guy."