Now that the war has started and the nation is absorbing what it means, E R O I C O decided to talk to three members of an up and coming generation to get a handle on young peoples’ reactions to the conflict.

Even before it started, the war aroused a great deal of opposition, not only in Europe, Asia and Australia, but here in the United States. In these trying times, we wanted to know: is it unpatriotic to protest the war? And did the war interfere with their spring break plans?

Joe Natter is a fresh-scrubbed 22-year old from Madison, Wisconsin. He’s currently a student at Ohio State University, majoring in communications. He’s recently returned from Cabo San Lucas and agreed to talk to us about what the war means to him. When we interviewed him, he was in the process of waking up to get ready for his 11:00 class.

E R O I C O: So, Joe, are you for the war or against it?

Joe: Well, like, for the most part, I support my president and I support the troops. I mean, our troops are over there fighting for our freedom and the safety of America. So, what’s not to support? I don’t like war, I mean, I think it’s bad, but sometimes you have go to war.

E R O I C O: What do you think of war protestors?

Joe: I think they’re hurting the morale of the troops and not really helping out at all. I mean, we are at war right now, so what’s the point of protesting what you can’t stop? Since it’s happening, we should support the president and the troops.

E R O I C O: Do you think occupying Iraq will reduce terrorism?

Joe: Sure. I mean, I think that without Saddam Hussein the world will be a safer place. And terrorists won’t be able to get any weapons from him, or training. Or be offered a safe haven to strike out against Americans or our allies.

E R O IC O: But many have argued there is no terrorist link between al-Qaeda and Iraq

Joe: Who says this? The blame America firsters? The ones who claim that it’s our foreign policy that causes all of this? It’s like blaming the victim for the crime in my opinion. They say there’s no evidence, but the absence of evidence doesn’t prove it’s not there.

E R O I C O: Do you know how many of the 9/11hijackers were Iraqi?

Joe: Too many! (Editor’s note: None of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. Fifteen were Saudi, the remainder were Egyptian.)

E R O I C O: What is your part of the war effort? What are you doing?

Joe: I support my president and I support the troops.

Sarah Hattenberg is a 24-year old Californian with a freshly minted bachelor’s degree in sociology. She’s made big plans to uproot herself and travel to Atlanta, Georgia, where she is slated to enroll at Emory University, for studies in clinical psychology. We caught up with her right on the tail of a week of relaxation in Palm Beach. News of the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq had bothered her, but as she pointed out, "I watched the war every morning on TV while I was away."

E R O I C O: What are your thoughts about the war?

Sarah: Well, I’m reminded of the classic song: ’War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.’ But I’d like to add: freedom, peace, security. Those are the things that war is good for.

E R O I C O: Do you really believe that war is a good thing?

Sarah: I believe that the outcome of war will result in these things. These are the things that our women and men are fighting for: freedom, peace, security. Because of their sacrifice, they are bringing liberation to the Iraqi people.

E R O I C O: But there are criticisms that America can’t impose its values on others

Sarah: Oh, the pusillanimous twittering of leftists! These are the same pithy statements that completely overvalue multiculturalism. I am for the empowerment of the downtrodden. For throwing off the veil of repression. Unleashing the shackles of oppression is like birth. It’s painful and laborious, but what it produces is the euphony of democracy. Our struggles here in this country oblige us to export, if you will, the fruits of that struggle will benefit the Iraqis. Think of it as the birth of Venus.

E R O I C O: You said that birth is painful, but it’s also bloody.

Sarah: Indeed, it is. But you’re missing the reductio ad absurdum of your position. Anti-war protesters in this country are denying freedom to an oppressed people: if that isn’t an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is. It’s not politically correct, but when the Iraqis see that our system of government and free markets is better than what they have, which is abject poverty, they’ll definitely warm to democracy. You see, to gently paraphrase the philosopher Rousseau, you have to often force people to be free.

E R O I C O: Sayyid Qutb said the same thing.

Sarah: Who?

E R O I C O: It’s not important. What is your part of the war effort? What are you doing?

Sarah: Well, I support the troops. Of course.

Patrick Shaud was nervous. He initially wanted to talk with us to get his position about the war made, but when he was supposed to show up with us at Starbucks, he phoned us to cancel. The 27-year old sophomore at Texas A&M University later phoned us to reschedule, stating that he had just broken up with his girlfriend and wanted to focus on that instead of the war. To make up for the cancel, he took us out on his father’s boat where we talked about the conflict in Iraq.

E R O I C O: What exactly do you think the goal of the war is?

Patrick: First I’d say, it’s to pick up where the United Nations left off: the disarmament of Iraq. I hear a lot of people claiming that it’s all about oil, and I don’t think it is. I mean, I’m sure that oil might have something to do with it, but all of these ’No blood for oil’ arguments pale in comparison to the atrocities that Saddam Hussein has committed against his own people. I mean, for Christ’s sake, he gassed thousands of Kurds!

E R O IC O: That’s true, although that did happen in the 1980s.

Patrick: Well, it’s a good thing there are no statute of limitations on murder! Saddam is an evil tyrant, and the world will be better off without him around. But for me, it’s really the failure of the U.N. to disarm Iraq that is the issue. How many resolutions do you need to get on with it? How many times can you let this murderer just continue to terrorize his people?

E R O I C O: So do you agree with the pre-emptive strike doctrine?

Patrick: We now live in a post-9/11 world. The rules have all changed. Everything’s changed. You can argue that a policy of containment worked during the Cold War, so why shouldn’t it work now? But terrorists don’t belong to a state, per se. They don’t have embassies. They work in a more clandestine manner than countries do, and are spread out all over the world. To wait for a terrorist strike is inviting it, in my opinion. It’s something that has to be rooted out, like a cancer. I mean, think about it, would you rather be for early detection or for waiting until the cancer starts making you sick?

E R O I C O: Do you think war protesters are un-patriotic?

Patrick: I don’t think they help, really. I mean, the troops need to know that the public supports them, and if I were a soldier, I don’t think I would feel 100% seeing Americans against me. People have the right to disagree, sure, but there are limits.

E R O I C O: Some might argue that sounds a little Orwellian. Or at least, a bit contradictory.

Patrick: In a time of war, I think many things are contradictory. There are known knowns and known unknowns. But we are at war, and we have to realize that our freedoms are something to be cherished and not abused. You have to keep the country unified. If it’s not unified, then the center can’t hold and we get bogged down and become weak. Diversity is a good thing, but only in certain amounts.

E R O I C O: Do you think terrorism will decrease when Saddam Hussein is out of power?

Patrick: Oh yes, definitely. President Bush said so in his speech to the nation near the beginning of the war. It’s like I said, if you treat terrorism like a cancer, you know, you have to get rid of the areas that it infects before it spreads. The Iraqis support terrorism. If you remove that ability to train and receive support, you decrease the chance of a terrorist attack.

E R O I C O: Do you think the Iraqis were involved in 9/11?

Patrick: I don’t think I want to wait around to find they weren’t involved. Iraq is a terrorist state, so why opt for the chance to allow them to make another September 11th? I think Colin Powell made a strong case that they’re involved in something, and I do believe they have weapons of mass destruction.

E R O I C O: Some people have strongly suggested that perhaps the weapons inspectors should have been given more time for the disarmament of Iraq. It’s moot now, but would you have been in favor of waiting?

Patrick: Well, yes and no. I mean, it did seem that we were pushing for a second resolution harder than I guess might have been necessary, but the government labeled Iraq an imminent threat to the United States. If they’re going to err on the side of caution and save lives, then I don’t disagree with wanting to move now and not wait longer. Saddam’s had 12 years to disarm and he plainly was not doing it. I think that was the point we were trying to make and the U.N. was just getting bogged down with bureaucracy. It was getting ridiculous.

E R O I C O: What is your part of the war effort? What are you doing?

Patrick: I support the troops.