Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Dogfighting pales before war deaths
By Bernard Obaa
Iowa State Daily (Iowa State U.)
07/24/2007

(U-WIRE) AMES, Iowa — May be the American media craze with celebrity lifestyles is good. Every now and then, some celebrity slip-up turns the spotlight on a hidden corner of American life. Just after the dust has settled on the Don Imus affair, the spotlight these past few days has turned on Michael Vick, the superstar quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons NFL and one of the six highest paid professional athletes in the United States.

Vick, 27, and three others were indicted last week on charges of conspiracy in a dogfighting operation - arranging, financing and betting on fights dating back to 2001, and being present at the brutal killing of animals that failed to measure up in test fights. Dogfighting is a crime in all but two U.S. states, and if convicted, he faces up to six years in jail and a $350,000 fine.

I find dogfighting abominable because what happens is cruel - almost beyond imagination. I, therefore, do not in any way condone dogfighting and Michael Vick's behavior. Being black, some may argue that he is deliberately being singled out by authorities. I hope, as the trial begins, there will be no reference to his race and that he will receive a fair hearing. Other black American sporting icons, of course, have fallen foul of the law - remember Kobe Bryant, the basketball superstar accused of rape in 2003, not to mention O.J. Simpson? The Humane Society of the United States, at the forefront of the campaign to eradicate this savage pseudo-sport, reckons up to 40,000 people are involved nationwide.

In all these cases, what is amazing to me is the level of outrage levelled at dogfighting compared to the war in Iraq. I compare the two because they both involve cruelty. The most scathing attack came from the highly respected Robert Byrd,the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, in an emotional speech Thursday evening. There were also demonstrations reported. The real shock for me is seeing people condemn cruelty to animals and the same people still supporting the cruelty to Iraqis occasioned by the U.S. occupation of their country.

The alleged dogfighting came to light during a week in which the Senate debated a bill all night to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The bill, as expected, was miserably defeated. Nobody protested. In fact, comedians had a field day mocking the debate, focusing more on the pizzas provided than the real issues being debated. The White House dismissed it as a show by Democrats. I fear we are beginning to get used to the killings in Iraq and considering it as "normal." The chilling statistics of the war - more than 3,600 U.S. troops and thousands of ordinary Iraqis who have perished during the war - is becoming abstract to many people except to those whose families have loved ones in Iraq. Are we becoming more concerned about cruelty to dogs than to humans?

The majority of Americans who own animals as pets can relate to the imagined pain inflicted on dogs during such fights, but cannot identify with the agony of innocent families whose relatives are killed in Iraq. People's deaths simply become part of statistics of the war.

As we wonder why such a privileged young athlete who suddenly finds himself earning vast amounts of money - the Falcons' quarterback is midway through a $130-million contract - gets involved in dogfighting, which is clearly a federal felony, the ordinary people in Iraq are wondering why the richest country, with supposedly the best democracy and most enlightened leadership in the world, is fighting in their country.

Trying to justify the war in Iraq is worse than justifying a dogfight. At least in a dogfight, it is animals involved, but in Iraq, we are talking of innocent, ordinary people who just want to lead a normal life being systematically brutalized.

Just imagine what the reaction to a prominent politician in this country defending a dogfight would be. Now, compare this with the current level of support for Republican candidates such as John McCain who still maintain the war in Iraq is good.

To me, the people responsible for the Iraq war are worse than the organizers of dogfights; the supporters of the war are worse than the spectators of a dogfight; and the people who do not condemn the war are worse than those who do not report dogfights, even when they are sure it is taking place.

If we can unite to fight against cruelty to animals, then we should do a better job in preserving the sanctity of human lives in Iraq. We cannot be appalled by an alleged cruelty to dogs and be indifferent to rising human death tolls in Iraq. If humans in Iraq were as important as our dogs, we would not accept President Bush's latest definition of success in the war in Iraq in terms of reduced level of violence.

I contend that any level of violence is simply unacceptable. What would be our reaction if a sadist likened a dogfight to boxing, with the owner as coach and the dog as prizefighter? The owner trains and conditions the dog, pushing him to his limits and thereby providing him with the tools to win, just like a coach would train a boxer. This is what Bush is saying in his definition of success in the war: A reduced level of Iraq casualties is victory.

As Michael Vick is arraigned next Tuesday, we need to remember the politicians whose actions have caused untold grief - not to animals and animal lovers, but to thousands of innocent families in Iraq - will never face the law and will go down in history as our heroes. That tells a great deal about the value attached to our pets and the people in Iraq who have become disposable in the fight against terrorism.

[ Back to Student Voices ]