Support for soldiers, anti-war views can co-exist
The Daily Bee printed a letter (Dec. 5, 2004) from a father, a Mr. Zimmerman, who expressed outrage that two teachers at Bonners Ferry High School allegedly told his son, who is on his way to Iraq, that they support him, but not the war to which he is going. The Bee's publisher and another writer moralized similarly.
I, too, think it was poor judgment to tell a young man going off to Iraq that there is another political viewpoint on this war. Someone on a journey to hell doesn't need any last moment confusion or doubts, especially if his or her journey cannot be changed.
When my wife's and my adopted son went to Iraq we did not talk to him about the deceit of the Iraq war. Nor did we send off our dear Bonners Ferry nephew to Iraq just three weeks ago with anything but good wishes and prayers. We "supported" both of those young men and do "support" all those young and now older people going to Iraq and pray for their safe return.
The letter writers leveraged this incident of poor judgment to couple patriotism with uncritical support of any war America undertakes. They imply that dissent is unpatriotic, although they state support for different political views. They state that one cannot pray that an American soldier be safe and yet argue that the soldier's mission is wrong. "Support our troops"? To me that really means appropriate plans for the military, provision of adequate armor, up-to-date equipment for Guard units, on-time pay, and reduction of the "stop-loss" policy. Ask Rumsfeld to support our troops.
The writers' jingoism, while it may quiet the fears and pain of some parents and friends of soldiers, is in fact painful and insulting to others who don't have the luxury of an unexamined faith.
When our relatives went to Iraq, we didn't talk to him about how presidents do lie to the American public-recently, the most egregious being Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and G.W. Bush-about wars they start or exacerbate for reasons other than "freedom" and "democracy." If we had, we would have quoted President T. Roosevelt: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president … is morally treasonable to the American public."
We didn't talk to him about how the Iraq invasion from the outset has primarily been about the establishment of military and "political" bases in Iraq, thereby increasing strategic control of Middle East oil supplies. We didn't talk to him about how he is entering a war that has from the outset been horribly planned and continuously bungled by this administration to this day.
The letters are especially insulting to my brother-in-law, whose son is now Iraq. Joe and his wife believe that if their son becomes an Iraq casualty, it will be as meaningless and tragic as if he were hurt in a drive-by shooting. It is equally insulting to the many other parents and soldiers whose similar views are unfortunately not expressed in the mainstream media.
When the "elders" send their innocents off to war, they must never stifle the conversation amongst themselves about the basis or morality of such a momentous shove.
STEPHEN DRINKARD
Sandpoint