 |
Friday,
April 2, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
To
protest is to demonstrate patriotism
Opinion
Editor Jeff Brubaker
is a junior history major from Weslaco.
Time
and time again I hear people complaining about how anti-war
demonstrators give a bad image of the United States and
its conflicts abroad — as if terrorists and other
opponents will see pictures of people holding signs and
placards and think of us as weak divided sycophants who
don’t know what we want.
Make no mistake that I have attended, and on occasion
organized, a number of demonstrations against our current
government, both here on campus and elsewhere. While I
might agree that such action might make me a dissident
— the truth is, in my opinion, that there is no act
more American than protesting one’s own government.
This country was built by people who protested the actions
of their government. People like Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison and Ben Franklin all took matters into their own
hands when they believed their rights were being threatened.
The next time you think of George Washington as “the
first patriot,” remember that British authorities
labeled him a mere rebel.
Critics of protesters, especially those who protest U.S.
foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere, also complain that
demonstrators are anti-soldier. Clearly, the biggest fans
of people who risk their lives in war zones are those
who want them to come home as soon as possible. Soldiers
should really be afraid of the person who continually
puts them in harm’s way for reasons that are less
than honest.
Two members of my family and a number of my friends were
stationed in Iraq. As they rolled into Baghdad, I was
in front of Reed Hall denouncing President Bush’s
invasion as a war for oil, big business and empire. In
fact, almost immediately after one demonstration, I made
my way to the post office to mail a care package to my
cousin who spent six months at a Baghdad airport and is
waiting to go back at the end of this year.
Neither he, nor anyone else I know, believed demonstrations
promoting a peaceful resolution to the Iraq war were contrary
to their interests in any way. In fact, most of my friends
and family overseas applauded my efforts and thanked me
for acting in their best interest. I’m sure that
many of our troops, especially reservists, who’s
term of service was lengthened during their deployment,
will reflect such feelings when it comes time to vote
for a new commander in chief in November.
The bottom line is that America will have to pay the price
for Bush’s war in Iraq for decades to come. What
was depicted as an act of liberation and mercy was clearly
an unprovoked invasion brought about more by industry
interests than the fear of weapons of mass destruction.
America’s opponents and allies will hold future administrations
accountable for the sins of our current president.
There is no doubt that those who protest for peace are
idealistic, but idealism is necessary to achieve change.
Demonstrators want the Bush administration to change the
way it deals with America’s neighbors and embrace
a policy of cooperation rather than a pre-emptive policy
that breeds terrorism. It stands to reason that a less
offensive foreign policy might win over those who disagree
with us rather than antagonize them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
