Activists not traitors; patriotism not defined by supporting war

Dear editor,

In his Nov. 11 "The Temporal Front" column, Russell Greim suggests "liberals" speaking out against a war versus Iraq are less patriotic than conservatives who back Bush's calls for pre-emptive strikes. This claim is based on a flawed assumption that we all agree with his personal definition of patriotism. Greim seems to be equating patriotism with unquestioning loyalty to the current presidential administration. Patriotism, rather, is a love of one's country, and that love can be shown in many ways.-á

When I join peace marches or criticize Bush's militaristic foreign policy, I do so because I believe peace is in the best interest of our nation. I believe war and ongoing military deployment in other countries hurt our economy, our moral foundation and our standing within the world community. I believe humanitarian aid -- not military aid -- should form the basis of our foreign policies.-á

I believe that the message of peace needs to be spoken at all times in America, especially when others seek to silence that message by claiming we must "speak with one voice" as we prepare for war. And all that arises out of my love for our country, out of a sense of patriotism.

Greim suggests peace activists are "assist[ing] in the agenda of the enemy" by undermining American support for Bush's war plans, making us unpatriotic traitors. Had America not assisted in Saddam's agenda for the past decade or so -- supporting him in the Iran/Iraq war and supplying him with samples of the biological and chemical agents we now fear -- we likely wouldn't be in this situation today.-á-á

When you see activists publicly supporting peace and denouncing aggressive foreign policy, feel free to disagree with their views, but please don't dismiss them as unpatriotic or anti-American. Instead, recognize that they are actively expressing their own forms of patriotism.


Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...