UA commencement speaker condemns war in Iraq

If I had to come up with a few simple rules that every college commencement speaker should follow, they'd be something along the lines of: 1) Know your audience; 2) Remember the occasion; 3) Keep it short; 4) Avoid controversy; and 5) Keep it positive.

This year's speaker at the University of Alabama's graduation ceremonies seems to have violated every one of those rules, using the occasion to deliver a diatribe against the war in Iraq.

(B'ham News) TUSCALOOSA - Caps and gowns filled the floor of Coleman Coliseum twice here Saturday as the University of Alabama held its spring commencement. ...

James T. Stephens, former president and current chairman of the board of EBSCO, addressed the graduates and challenged them to do better than previous generations. He then challenged them to question the nation's motives for going to war in Iraq.

"I would like to ... convey thoughts in two domains," he said. "No. 1 is your family domain. No. 2 is our national and global domain."

Stephens said graduates should take care of themselves and their families, they should focus on things they can do something about, they should be open-minded and curious; and should realize a call to open-mindedness is not a call to be valueless. "Have values, be judgmental, and ... find the strength to live them and to expect them within your society," he said.

Stephens then quoted James Madison and Dwight Eisenhower about the dangers of military power and conflict. "While we need to be strong, our society must be willing to question how much is necessary and what else could be done with (money spent on the military)," he said.

"We ... are now engaged aggressively in addressing Iraq," he said. "We are asking whether our minds are being led by a good heart. We are asking whether this is good global citizenship. Most importantly, we are asking: Is this the behavior of a good and virtuous society?"

Stephens said he finds two elements of the war painful to the nation's character. "First, we stepped outside our national character when we started the war," he said. "The second pain is the combination of the loss of life and the large number of crippled young men and women of our armed forces, but the greater number is the 65,000 absolutely innocent children, women and men, all Iraqi civilians, who have died from the disturbances created.

"We can relate easily to the family pain from the killing of innocents at Virginia Tech. Fifty civilians died in Iraq that very day."

I disagree with several of Mr. Stephens's remarks.

First off, I don't believe that the U.S. spends too much money on its military. Given the threats the West currently faces and the fact that American defense spending as a percentage of GDP is well below what it was during the Cold War, a very good case can be made that we need to spend even more money on defense, not less.

Secondly, I don't think that we "stepped outside our national character" by removing Saddam Hussein from power. The benefit of hindsight may eventually show that it was unwise to use war as a means for achieving that objective, but it is well within "our national character" to oppose the devious intentions of tyrants when they use their power to threaten our interests. Furthermore, saying that "we started the war" ignores over a decade of history that preceded the 2003 U.S. invasion. It was Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait back in 1990. It was Saddam Hussein who refused to abide by the cease-fire agreement he signed at the end of that conflict. It was Saddam Hussein who ordered his military to routinely and illegally interfere with coalition enforcement of the U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. It was Saddam Hussein who gave safe haven to terrorist leaders inside Iraq - including Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others. It was Saddam Hussein who ordered an assassination attempt against former President George H.W. Bush 1993. And Mr. Stephens says that we started this war?

Finally, I think that comparing civilian deaths in Iraq to the murder of students at Virginia Tech is problematic, to say the least. To review, here's what Mr. Stephens said:

"The second pain is the combination of the loss of life and the large number of crippled young men and women of our armed forces, but the greater number is the 65,000 absolutely innocent children, women and men, all Iraqi civilians, who have died from the disturbances created.

"We can relate easily to the family pain from the killing of innocents at Virginia Tech. Fifty civilians died in Iraq that very day."

Now, I don't think that Mr. Stephens was suggesting that the U.S. is directly responsible for the 65,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. At least I hope he wasn't. Nor do I think he was implying some sort of moral equivalence between the U.S. military and the Virginia Tech shooter. He seems to be saying that the pain experienced by families who lose loved ones to violence is horrible, no matter what the circumstances.

That's fine, but how many more Iraqi civilians will lose their lives each day if the U.S. withdraws its forces before Iraqi leaders are able to reach a political settlement? It is precisely because we are a "good and virtuous society" that we must do everything we can to prevent the untold horrors that would result from our early departure. It is because we are "good global citizens" that we have to see this thing through. The alternatives are simply not acceptable - either strategically or morally.

OK...almost done.

Now that I've pointed out where I disagree with Mr. Stephens, I should say that none of that is really the reason I find his speech so troubling.

The thing is...Stephens wasn't invited to deliver a speech on U.S. foreign policy. If he had been, his remarks would have been entirely appropriate, albeit ridiculously wrongheaded. This was a graduation ceremony, and this was the wrong sort of speech to give. These graduates have had to put up with more than enough left-wing drivel from administrators and professors to last them a lifetime. Surely, it's not too much for them to ask that their commencement address be free of America-bashing claptrap.

According to one commenters at Free Republic, at least a few people in the audience weren't amused by the speech, either:

I have heard from a good personal source that Stephens was literally booed off the stage for these comments. According to the source he did not finish the speech.

Another says:

After the 9am ceremony, he received what I’d characterize as ‘normal’ applause. I heard one boo and about 15 people - primarily faculty - stood up and clapped.

The 1pm ceremony was more charged. During the 2nd half of the speech, when he was citing figures about how much the US spends on defense ($0.40 of every tax dollar, more than next 20 nations combined, etc.) a group began to boo. Immediately others began to respond to the booers, telling them to “let him finish.” Somebody who was sitting on the stage later told me that they could not hear this. When Stephens said, “In conclusion” towards the end of the speech, a good number of people clapped and laughed. When he finished, there was polite applause, some booing, and again some standing ovation from faculty...exactly what you’d expect.

He sat on the stage for the next hour (seemed like an hour) as graduates came up and received diplomas. Afterwards, at the foot of the stage, he was approached by a graduate and her family who were offended by the speech. They spoke for several minutes. Afterwards, he walked out with several other people.

If anyone was actually at UA on Saturday, be sure to leave a comment.