At the Academy Awards ceremony on March 23, Michael Moore had this to say upon accepting his Oscar for best documentary feature:

We live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.

Moore was "surrounded onstage by his fellow nominees in a show of solidarity." Steve Martin, host for the evening, later joked, "It was so sweet backstage. The teamsters are helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo." As well they should have.

Backstage, Moore went on to criticize the idea that "violence is an acceptable means to resolve a conflict." Apparently, he has never had his life or a loved one's live physically threatened by another human being. Violence is not a happy thing, but it is acceptable when it prevents worse things. Violence is not the worst man has to offer.

Let's Think for Ourselves

Many of us are tired of actors like Michael Moore flexing their celebrity muscle in order to indoctrinate anyone who is listening in such a way that the average American can not. Whether for or against President Bush, the war against Iraq, or anything else political, celebrities seem to feel responsible for educating their followers on those matters on which they themselves are often not very well educated. Worse, in times like this when patriotic solidarity is arguably most important are the times when celebrities tend to seek the greatest divides.

What celebrities and people who share a similar sense of "duty" do not realize is that, not only are we capable of coming to our own conclusions given the same reports that they hear, but many of us are more directly involved and have our decisions made for us in ways that Hollywood actors and other celebrities likely are not.

Amy, a friend and fellow student whose husband and cousin are each active duty, is "sick and tired" of complaints of this war's illegitimacy. Like me, she believes that disagreement is perfectly normal and acceptable, and even the worst of opinions should be allowed. I value everyone's equal right to share any sense or nonsense they wish to share, because I want that same freedom when people disagree with me.

Not everyone is as close to this war as Amy, but many are closer, and I for one can understand her discontent. In a written statement, she says:

My husband's still here, but my cousin is scheduled to go out there in May. [They may both be called sooner] now that war's started. That's why it's so infuriating to me when all of these people are so hateful in their protests. They have every right to their opinions, but does it occur to them that it won't only be innocent Iraqis dying? Innocent Americans will be dying, and they believe enough in the cause to stand up and do so. If all you have the balls to do is bitch on a message board or in a newspaper column, then maybe you don't need to be talking at all.

She's right. Not all of our soldiers in Iraq are supportive of this war, as is clearly illustrated by the young soldier who killed one and injured several other of his fellow soldiers on March 22 when he lobbed a grenade into their tent. Aside from this treasonous act, most of the best of our best are there to do a job -- to serve and protect you and me -- and they have put their trust into their leaders that they are doing the right thing.

The Liberal Mistake

Likewise, it is the responsibility of all Americans to put their trust into their leader at least until he or his policies can be proven wrong or to be a failure. After all, we do not have the information that he has that likely justify his decisions and policies. To be a skeptic is fine, but to assume the pessimist's position all but rules out the possibility that the President can be right. Such a strategy is incredibly dangerous and defeatist, especially considering that every President this nation has known has been opposed on countless issues on which he certainly was right, largely due to baseless ideological opposition.

Ideological interpretation is not evidence against anyone, and it only serves to deride and divide when our goal should be to unite and fight for what is right. Not because we want to, but because, in our current situation with Iraq, anything less renders the United Nations less useful than it already is by encouraging rogue states to break the rules, for certainly no punishment would come of it. And let's not forget why President Bush took his case to the UN in the first place: not to gain its approval, but to give it the chance to enforce its own resolutions for the sake of international security.

The "liberal mistake", according to Robert Kaplan, from his book The Coming Anarchy, "is to think that there is a program or policy to alleviate every problem in the world." (Here, liberalism refers to the political ideology that advocates peaceful and cooperative relations among nations.) Perhaps a more fundamental problem is the assumption that peace is the absence conflict. Any disagreement is a conflict of interests, and agreeing to disagree does not resolve that conflict, but merely postpones it until it should become urgent. The problem with a policy of pacifism is that it undermines the international norms that encourage good behavior when troublemakers are present. We learned that lesson all too well in the 1930s.

The realist mistake, on the other hand, is the assumption that military action is the most or only effective means of resolving conflict. Unfortunately, however, we are not yet living in an ideal world in which we can all simply agree to disagree. Sometimes conflicts result in violence, and in nearly every case, one side is labeled the aggressor. The problem is that the aggressor believes its action is just.

Such is the nature of the rift that has divided the United Nations between groups led respectively by the United States and France. Rather than simply take the easy way out and preach for support for our troops, I attempt the unthinkable: to defend the French and their President, Jacques Chirac, while ardently disagreeing with their recent stand against US military action against Iraq.

The Conservative Mistake

As you might have guessed by now, I support this war insofar as I support my President. I trust that the classified information that my eyes will never see warrant the action being taken by our current President, just as similar information warranted similar action by our previous President five years ago. The billions of lives at constant risk of everyday life are important enough to warrant military action to protect them. Certainly, I have no proof that this war is necessary to protect them, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt that my President has that information; therefore, it would be illogical to doubt him.

Despite my support for this President, I dare not support the Republican Party. Not only have the Republicans in Congress passed the largest budget in the history of our nation at a time when our economy is sluggish at best, but they have crossed a line into what could easily become an international relations nightmare by renaming French fries and French toast "freedom fries" and "freedom toast," respectively, in House restaurants. This has prompted Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine to accuse Americans of "acting even more French than the French."

Let's not stop there. Certainly, millions of Americans believe that French President Jacques Chirac's staunch opposition to American efforts against Iraq are inexcusable. We've all heard the jokes. Recently, Chirac remarked, "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure," to which Rush Limbaugh replied on his radio program, "As far as France is concerned, you're right!" The focus on France's cowardice in the line of fire has become typical, as has a national pastime of French--bashing. David Letterman bashes them particularly well, criticizing their demands for more inspections: "The last time the French asked for more proof it came marching into Paris under a German flag."

Good French jokes can be quite humorous, but they hardly paint an accurate picture. On their soil, the deadliest war in the history of man was fought only sixty years ago. Since 1787, when the United States Constitution was drafted, France has been through twelve regimes. And, lest we forget, the United States would not even be here if France had not helped to fight off the British in the 1770s.

None of this is a good excuse to undermine the relevance of United Nations, but I can understand Chirac's motivation. France has been a world power for centuries, and only in the last few decades has its significance declined. Political turmoil over the last two hundred years and a devastating blow in World War II have left France in shock, but with a Gaullist president insistent on reestablishing France's world power status, just as Charles de Gaulle was after WWII.

France isn't the beacon of cowardice our jokes make it out to be. Jacques Chirac's stand for what he believes is right for the world is no different than Bush's stand, except that everyone knew that Bush was going to get his way anyway. This makes Chirac's stand even more unbelievable, offensive to some, but -- more importantly -- highly courageous. It takes nerve to stand so firmly against the world's only superpower. And freedom includes the right to disagree.

The strongest argument against France's opposition seems to be that, after all we've done for them, they owe it to us to side with us against Iraq. But isn't that exactly why the "arrogant" label fits America so well? Because we believe that everything we do is good for the world, every nation is indebted to us for our good deeds.

Likewise, those nations believe what they are doing is best, and that we owe our gratitude to them for their jobs well done. Should they simply forego their own values because we have the biggest military? Or wouldn't that defeat the purpose of "liberty and justice for all"?

Also available in Microsoft Word (DOC) format: 20030324-France.doc