I honestly think Undergraduate Student Government should pass a peace resolution. I mean, why not? Should we forfeit our national or regional voice on the premise that it isn’t our place to say whether or not we should be at war? Of course not. We have tons of opinions, hundreds of things to say, and it’s high time we stood atop mighty Jerome and shouted them.

That being said, allow me to shout for a moment, because what follows is something I cannot shout enough: everybody wants peace. President Bush wants peace, Saddam Hussein wants peace and yes, even Joseph Stalin, when he could breathe, wanted peace. The question of war is not a question of peace, but a question of the terms in which we must live in peace. On Sept. 11, we were told that if we wanted peace, we had to take a 3,000- person hit from time to time. That, according to an overwhelming majority of Americans, was an unconditional term for peace. It still is.

There is a logical mistake that anti-war protesters oft float, and it holds very pertinent to a discussion of our terms for peace. The error is an assumption of monocausality; put in more words, they think the war is caused by one thing and one thing only: oil. Or money, or greed, put whatever name you want on it; when faced with a dilemma about who is wrong, a monomaniacal dictator or Bush, a good part of the peace movement blames Bush first. Not all of them, mind you, but I’ve seen those mustaches drawn over Dubya’s stumbling upper lip, and I’ve never seen a single anti-war protester protest that kind of demagoguery. Here’s my confession: this war is about oil. Yep. But it’s also about children, Iraqi and American. It’s also about terrorism, and it’s also about weapons of mass destruction. Far and away, the White House and the Pentagon feel this war is about a strategic vision for the future of the United States: to develop and maintain armed forces that can foresee and neutralize small localized threats before they become big domestic ones. That policy is not aggressive, it’s assertive. There is a fine line, of course. But don’t ask the authors of USG’s

Peace Resolution about that. First and foremost, this war is about oil to them, and it is the epitome of aggression, no matter how many times USG amends the resolution.

A “peaceful diplomatic resolution of conflict built upon international support”? What dream world do you people live in? Did you see the human shields come back to Jordan after being kicked onto the streets by Iraqi civilians? Didn’t you hear about the torture facilities? The political prisoners? How much evidence do we have to show you before you stop chanting “there is no link between Iraq and terrorism”? Are the first 20 missiles loaded with Sarin and Mustard Gas not enough? How do you still believe in a “diplomatic resolution of conflict built upon international support” while our soldiers are showing signs of nerve gas exposure after walking through a building the U.N. Weapons Inspectors have proclaimed WMD-free? The answer is easy: you still see inspectors as hunters instead of a verification tool. You’re delusional. I simply can’t think of any other reason for your persistent defense of a policy that would leave a man like Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq.

Even if Bush is solid evil and after oil, couldn’t you maybe let that slide so a couple million people could go free and we could, once again, weaken the glowing global terror network? The anti-war movement isn’t supporting Saddam, no doubt, but it is perpetuating him. It’s ignorant to at least not recognize that.

So here’s my open advice to USG: I’ll support your peace resolution because I love peace. But I want peace under the right terms: no Saddam, no terrorist camps in Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction in the hands of psychotic killers who have demonstrated their willingness to use them. I’ll support your resolution when it says “peace, through the decisive use of force.”