- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Mr. Patterson,
I have friends who think as you do, in fact, they are the majority of people in my personal life. Really, good friends. Some would call them "peaceniks" or "moonbats" or worse, but I know them as sincere, caring, thoughtful people.
They offered to hit me with their car to wound me a little so I would not have to go to Iraq, to break my arm, to drive me to Canada. It is a strange expression of love, but there it was just the same.
They protested the war, plastered anti-Bush stickers on their car, and still sent me care packages and wrote letters and email encouraging me and my well being while I was over there. They could distinguish between the war and the soldiers called to serve there. I would suggest you might find a way to do that as well, rather than holding every individual participant fully accountable for the sum entirety of the ills of the war. We are not all Rambo. Who is it again that has the cartoon cliche version of the military in this discussion?
I believe that is what is called, "Supporting the soldiers, without supporting the war." The conservatives say it is impossible to do both (I disagree), and they point to people such as yourself as proof of that (you are their pawn), and a great many people believe their argument, and that is why people who think as you do seem to not get their candidates elected to the majority; you speak only to the people who already agree with you, and alienate those who might be persuaded to move to your point of view with a less extremist argument. Your disconnection with observable reality turns off a great many, in the majority, and the wheels of our representative democracy, with all its flaws, churn, and the outcome is elected leaders who I am sure horrify you.
While you might be surprised that your viewpoints are really not that far from my own, you bring it to a place I cannot go. I am inspired by the leadership principles of a man named Lt. Col Joshua Chamberlain. You should study him. He fought in the U.S. Civil War for the Union. It was a war that a lot of people showed up for, and fought by many who thought it was a bad idea. At the end of the war, he was chosen to accept the surrender of Lee's army at Appomattax in Virginia. He ordered his soldiers to salute the defeated confederate soldiers as they marched past. His actions showed respect and dignity towards his adversaries. The salute was widely reported (and appreciated) in the South, and condemned by many in the North. Chamberlain understood that while wars happen, they are followed by peace, and our conduct in war helps determine the results of the peace that follows. We need soldiers who think like this. Who understand the long term consequences of their individual actions, made more dramatic in a world of instant global news. This is a far more pragmatic yet idealistic reality to embrace in my view.
I can recall few instances where someone gave a war and no one came. One of the few I can think of perhaps is the mass suicide at Masada, but that was only one side not showing up. I think that is what you are proposing in reality, mass suicide by the side that does not show up. There is nobility and dignity of a sort in that too I suppose.
I disagree with you. I respect your viewpoint, but I think it woefully ideal. I hear the frustration and anger behind your words. I really wish I could live in your happy world. When you find your pacifistic utopian Shangri-la, please invite me, I promise to tend my garden, and own no weapons (or at least no tools designed ONLY to be weapons.)
