Fast forward to the present opposition to the war in Iraq. I am against the war in Iraq because of the terrible pain it is inflicting on our servicemen and servicewomen and their families. Sure, there are other valid reasons to be against the war in Iraq, but these concerns, often supported by over-hyped accounts, monopolize public attention to the exclusion of the issue of how it affects our troops. Ask a typical antiwar demonstrator why he or she opposes the war, and you hear things like “We’re killing the Iraqi people’ “We are plundering Iraqi oil,” “It is diverting resources from domestic concerns,” or “We have snubbed world opinion.”

Because 345 soldiers have been killed, and the death toll is mounting. Because hundreds more have sustained serious injuries. Because our troops are so stressed that there have been abnormally high rates of suicide in the army. Because men and women in uniform have been kept away from their friends and family for months on end. The fact that this line of opposition to the war is so rarely cited bothers me, because it shows a lack of concern for our brave men and women in the armed forces. It suggests that the antiwar movement is motivated more by grandiose intangibles, such as fanciful-sounding “imperialism,” and “unilateralism,” than by concern for actual people—people our own age in our own towns.

The small role that concern for American troops plays in the antiwar movement was quite literally displayed during last week’s protests outside the Science Center. The approximately 60 students participating in the “End the Occupation” rally devoted the vast majority of their time and efforts to chanting things like, “Promise, promise liberation, all we see is occupation” a criticism that paints our actions in Iraq as evil and malicious. Or they decried the dawn of the “New World Empire,” depicting our actions in Iraq as greedy and self-serving. There was only one protester who chose to emphasize the plight of the American forces in his opposition to the war in Iraq, with a sign that, “Our troops shouldn’t have to die for Bush’s corrupt policies,” but he was noticeably quiet in the otherwise boisterous crowd and his rickety sign, smaller than a piece of computer paper, hardly grabbed the attention of the large banners deriding other negative aspects of the war.

The anti war movement, while correct in its aim, is misplacing the emphasis in its reasoning. The fact of the matter is that a president should never put our military personnel in harm’s way unless he is sure that more lives will be saved than will be lost. As it becomes increasingly clear that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to American national security, the tragedy of 345 and counting young lives lost becomes greater and greater. And it is that enormous tragedy that we should be focusing on, because the opinion of Jacques Chirac, the profits of Halliburton and the temporary hardship imposed on the Iraqi people—who no doubt will soon enjoy better lives than they ever could have under a brutal dictator—pale in comparison. I hope that future demonstrations keep this concern in mind. After all, if you were President Bush, what would keep you up at night: Knowing that people think awarding reconstruction contracts to Halliburton is a kickback, or having to sign a condolence letter?