Service, on both the local and global level, is a moral obligation for us all. Even while attending school, many students find time to contribute to our University, our community, and our world. Anti-war activism is one way to fulfill this obligation. By calling for the end of the protracted military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, students ideally provide a service to the global community. Hoping that our leaders and fellow citizens will hear our grievances, we add our voices of dissent to the political process.
Today marks the seventh anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy, and the theme of the day on Columbia’s campus is service. I plan on honoring those who have died through the continued service of dissent to the failed war policy of our nation. Yet some say that in order to show respect for those who died on Sept. 11, 2001 we should commemorate this tragedy without political discourse.
I argue the opposite. The national community should honor those who died through rigorous discussion of the foreign policy issues related to Sept. 11. This anniversary could provide a forum for the service of debate. There is no perfect memorial for the human toll of the past seven years, but what better way to show our respect than to debate ways of preventing future deaths within our national and global communities? There is no purpose to untimely death. However, if we can use these past tragedies as a lesson for preventing future horrors, at least we will have shown that we are observing them in a real and tangible way.
Unfortunately, the two presidential candidates plan to suspend “partisan discourse” in order to discuss service. This is respectful if they mean they will not call each other names for a day. Yet, if it means that they will not address the real problems of war, then it is disrespectful toward the memories of those who have lost their lives. This day, which seven years ago took the lives of 3,000 Americans and served as a catalyst for two wars that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands, should of all days be one of rigorous and respectful discourse as to the proper course for this nation. By failing to directly address the political realities of this anniversary with debate and analysis, the candidates do a disservice to all the people around the globe who have lost their lives through war over the past seven years.
True service is not always easy, either for citizens or the officials we elect. For the candidates, it may not be “smart politics” to use Sept. 11 in order to explicitly draw attention to their policy differences. However, if there are differences of opinion between the candidates with regards to the current wars, I encourage them to speak to those differences today. Neglecting to address the political imperatives of our times does a disservice to society and, more importantly, fails to honor those who have lost their lives during the past seven years.
Other students and I will do our part by providing the service of anti-war activism, in an effort to draw attention to the human toll of war. I agree that providing service best honors the Afghans, Americans, and Iraqis who have lost their lives. I hope the candidates will do their part by honoring this tragedy with the service of a meaningful and respectful debate.
The author is a student in the School of General Studies majoring in political science.
