War stirs debate on UC Irvine Campus

With the onset of war in Iraq already past us, University of California Irvine students and faculty reacted to the continuing American-led advance into Baghdad with mixed sentiments.

In a university setting with antiwar demonstrations and heated debate still ongoing, some questioned the merits of continuing protests when American troops are already risking their lives on foreign soil.

"Expressing dissatisfaction is tolerable, but engaging in grossly disrespectful and aggressive protests only serve to cause further damage to an already ailing American spirit in this time of war," said Ryan Mykita, a second-year economics and political science major and publisher of Irvine Review, a conservative-leaning paper at UCI.

Mykita believes that the majority of anti-war protests are concerned more with the wrongdoings of the US government than the casualties of an Iraqi war.

"Far too many of these protesters are probably more anxious to witness the US admit wrongdoing than actually prevent unnecessary casualties," Mykita said.

Antoinette Parekh disagrees. Parekh along with other UCI families from Verano Place, recently started Families Against the War, a group committed to protests against the war while the fighting in Iraq continues.

Parekh feels that an effort must be made to encourage other people to feel "uncomfortable enough to do something about the war." Meeting every Friday from four to six pm at the corner of Culver and University, protesters hold signs urging cars that pass by to honk as a sign of support for the antiwar cause.

Lia Gaertner, another protester from the group, stressed that antiwar efforts are not directed at our soldiers, but at the government that put their lives on the line.

"We're not anti-troop," Gaertner said. "We don't want them to die for us." While Nathan C. Masters, a third-year political science major and editor in chief of conservative Irvine Review doesn't fully support the war in Iraq, he is equally critical of the antiwar protesters who have failed to effectively make their case against the war.

"I believe there is a well-reasoned and convincing case to be made against this war on Iraq. The antiwar protesters have utterly failed to advance such [a] case though," Masters said.

Mark LeVine, an assistant professor of history at UCI and expert at Mid-east affairs, explained that another plan must be developed by the antiwar movement to deal with the realities of a war that has already begun.

"It's too easy to focus on Bush as the bad guy ... we need to be able to develop a more holistic discourse," LeVine said. "It's stupid to say 'Stop the War.' If that's the depth of the discourse, you're going to waste people's time."

According to LeVine, the antiwar movement's failure to provide a feasible alternative to the war will only bolster President George W. Bush's misguided intentions.

"I think we have to figure out what it is we need as an alternative," LeVine said. "What do we do instead? Other than just to stop? Then what? Do we go back to the status quo?" LeVine stressed that the antiwar movement must be honest in its portrayal of Saddam Hussein-just because protesters are against the war doesn't mean Hussein is not a dictator.

"The lack or real lack of acknowledgement" of Saddam's crimes, LeVine explained, will only characterize antiwar protesters as anti-American.

Rohan Trikha, a third-year economics major, argued that the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is just.

"The protesters completely ignore the fact that Saddam's regime will be toppled after this war, which will make the world a better place for everyone," Trikha said.

While Trikha said he would not personally take part in the protests, the antiwar supporters certainly have every right to protest.

"I think every person has their own opinion, [though] I personally would not join the protest for war," Trikha said.