PROTESTERS are patriotic. So are the war's supporters. So are Democrats who speak out against the war. Anyone who considers any of these groups un-American or unpatriotic are simply wrong. Any accusation of protestors and dissenters being unpatriotic, however, is more than inaccurate -- it is also dangerous.
The Republican Party has decided to label any Democratic dissent as unpatriotic. When Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle charged the president with failing miserably with diplomacy, the Republican response was virulent and unforgiving. House Majority Leader Tom Delay responded to Daschle by simply saying "shut your mouth" in French. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert accused Daschle of coming "mighty close" to comforting Saddam Hussein and America's enemy. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has been similarly hostile to any Democratic dissent.
Such a response from the Republican leadership is entirely unnecessary. Bush -- "a uniter, not a divider" -- should have spoken out against Delay's comments. Besides its obvious disrespect to the French, who still remain an ally whose support we will want in reconstructing Iraq, Delay's comments represent an intolerance of any purely hawkish point of view. Accusing Daschle of comforting the enemy is similarly ridiculous. Hussein has already seen the great division not only in the nation, but the rest of the world as well. To think that Daschle's comments will somehow motivate Hussein to fight harder and kill more Americans is simply empty rhetoric to marginalize the Democrats.
Congressional Democrats love this country. Of course, they want to minimize military and civilian causalities. The dissent against the president's diplomacy when the country was on the brink of war was a legitimate grievance. Daschle had no intention of constantly arguing the United States' failure to rally U.N. support during the ground invasion. Daschle has not tried to pass a measure decrying Bush's use of unilateral force. Daschle simply vented his frustration before the ground invasion began, before the first missiles were fired and before Bush addressed the nation. Daschle's comments put no one at risk.
Because this is a preemptive war, rather than a war of defense, a new level of dissent should be expected, as well as tolerated. With a preemptive strike, certainly new dangers present themselves. Dissent must be tolerated. Otherwise, patriotism could become jingoism and diplomacy could become militarism. Luckily, most of our nation has remained restrained, but when our politicians and citizens decry any dissent, that's when we put ourselves at risk.
Protesters and dissenters are patriotic. They express their love of country in another way than those directly shouting their support of the president's policies. First off, protestors and dissenters are not wishing to lower the morale of the troops. Most protests are against the president's policies, and although he is commander-in-chief, he still remains distant from the common soldier. Protestors do not challenge the tactics of war, but rather the motives and timing, which the soldiers have no control over.
Secondly, protestors bear the burden of living with the worst-case scenarios. Protestors here and across the nation, now that the war has started, remind us that war is never a sure thing, as Bush himself reminded us on Wednesday night. Before the war began, the rhetoric against war was just that, rhetoric. Threats of a war leading to half a million civilian casualties, a terrorist strike against the United States and a slumping economy were methods to convince an administration to pursue diplomacy and peace. Now, such claims are possibilities even most people against the war do not want to accept. As scary as it is, someone needs to accept this onus. Not so they can say "I told you so" if the war goes wrong, but rather to remind the nation that this will not be easy.
Protests simply will not lower the morale of our troops. The soldiers in the Persian Gulf knew the division of the world and the American people before, yet all reports show the military's willingness to confront Iraq. Retired Air Force Major Don Shepperd, CNN military expert, admits that during the Vietnam War protests had little to no effect on his troops ("Shepperd: Protests affect troop morale 'not at all,'" CNN.com, Feb. 17).
Protestors restrain the passions and whims that can develop during the intensity of war. Patriotism is certainly important during war time, but jingoism and unchecked presidential power is not. And since protests and dissent do not affect the troops, protesters cannot be accused of putting our troops at risk.
Rather, they are demonstrating their commitment to the ideals of freedom of speech and democracy. They demonstrate this patriotism in this way; by embracing these ideals through peaceful protests. Even Bush himself has called the protestors patriots for expressing themselves. The rest of the war hawks should fall in line and respect the president's support of the protesters.
Not everyone is for this war, nor should we expect everyone to be. To try to silence protestors and dissenters through accusations of being unpatriotic goes against the ideals of our country and puts those ideals at risk.
(Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
