In Ryan Yeung's Sept. 26 column ("Calls for peace are unpatriotic"), he wrote, "To allow this attack to go unpunished is to show support for the genocide of Americans," and "The idea of the peace rally is to support future terrorism on American soil and more deaths of Americans, as a lack of military action will no doubt lead to."
The proposition that military response is the only available method to prevent future terrorist acts on American soil is certainly not beyond question. In fact, American military action without extreme care, and to some extent any military action, risks further alienating large Islamic populations in Pakistan and Indonesia, among other nations. Increasing sympathy with al-Qaeda is obviously not the Bush administration's goal in launching air strikes against Afghanistan, but it may be a horrible consequence.
American foreign policy has not always been farsighted. Therefore, it is appropriate to call for the consideration of long-term consequences and to be wary of the American response to the terrorism of Sept. 11.
Policy objectives and strategies should be discussed openly and rationally. Though secrecy prior to military action is important, it is democratic-not unpatriotic-for citizens to express their priorities to elected leaders so that constituents' views may be taken into account in policy decisions, no matter how secret they may be.
Attempts to brand any dissent from the course of action our political leaders appear to have chosen as anti-American or unpatriotic hinder such open discussion. In a time of great national unity, in which dissent is discouraged, we have given the executive branch a blank check.
For example, Congressional leaders of both parties agreed to support Bush's requested $18.4 billion of additional military funding for the coming year alone-all deficit spending. This after military officials have stated that its $10 to $15 billion portion of Congress' initial $40 billion anti-terrorism package is more than enough money. The $18.4 billion will serve mostly as a boon to the development of the favored weapons of members of Congress or military leaders, including many weapons useless in the battle against terrorism ("Beneficiaries of the Military Buildup Await Their Orders," The New York Times, Sept. 22). The absence of any political disagreement on every measure taken is eerie and by no means indicates that there have been no mistakes or that none of the administration's policies could be improved if they heard other views.
The expansion of the conflict in Afghanistan and the potential results cannot be taken lightly. In the face of this fear and confusion, it is important to discuss all options. If some of us, as citizens, want to express the priority of all civilian life and request military restraint as much as possible, that voice should be heard. Disagreements should be expressed logically and factually. That voice was instead branded unpatriotic in Yeung's column.
This silencing of dissent was reflected in President Bush's address to Congress on Sept. 20. To paraphrase Bush's sentiment, "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Many Americans have internalized his demand of a choice from other nations and applied it to individual Americans as well. This demand for unconditional loyalty to whatever course of action the administration chooses not only offends foreign nationalism, but it also encroaches on the principles of free speech and thought we Americans love. Further, it impedes the development of a complex and considered opinion, though hopefully it does not also reflect the absence of a complex and considered policy.
We must all give this horrible situation the sober consideration it needs. Blanket attacks on selected opinions as unpatriotic do not contribute to the discussion but instead discourage democratic participation as we struggle for the right thing to do.
Tom Fritzsche '03
Dedications to bin Laden
On the night of Sept. 21, a record-breaking sixty million viewers tuned in to observe America's "pop culture superstars" lend their precious time to answering phones for a mega disaster relief telethon, which reportedly raised $200 million. Households across our purple mountains majesty feasted their eyes on a wailing Julia Roberts, Penelope Cruz (Tom Cruise's new flavor) not knowing the words to "God Bless America," and a music video of 1,000 tree-trunk-sized candles burning to elevator music. Live performances by Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Bon Jovi and Billy Joel were also on the playbill, and while their numbers rang out and hit home, I thought that a few other tunes would have been more appropriate. Take a look at 10 long distance dedications going out into the Afghanistan caves from me to Osama:
1. Tom Petty, "Don't Come Around Here No More"
2. Bon Jovi, "Wanted Dead Or Alive"
3. Ben Harper, "Please Bleed"
4. Lenny Kravitz, "What Goes Around Comes Around"
5. Beatnuts, "You Know Who You F*ckin' With"
6. De La Soul, "Squat!"
7. *NSync, "Bye Bye Bye"
8. Steely Dan, "Third World Man"
9. Green Day, "Geek Stink Breath"
10. Peter Tosh, "Fools Die"
Bess Kargman '04
Americans must conquer fear
Students for a Peaceful Response (SPR) has conveyed to the student body the impression that they object, on principle, to any U.S. military action against Afghanistan (or, for that matter, any other nation). It is worth noting that SPR is concerned with more than just principles. In its "Points and Counterpoints" document, which details anticipated arguments in favor of military action and how to respond to them, one of the responses to "I'm willing to pay the price of losing some American troops in order to stop future terrorism" is "Remember that it is our generation that would be doing the actual fighting. We are of military draft age." This counterpoint obviously cannot be called a principle.
It's natural to be scared at a time like this, but it is only through surmounting these fears that our nation has, time and again, overcome evil and returned peace and prosperity to itself and to much of the world. I would note that in World War II, which did entail the use of the draft, if most Americans our age had responded as the SPR has, then almost every European Jew would be dead, and Chinese, Koreans and other Asians would be slaves of the Japanese Empire, among other horrors.
I do not wish to deny the horrors of war itself, but there are some things worth fighting for. Stopping state-sponsored terrorism is among those. To quote President Woodrow Wilson, a fervent advocate of peace, "the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured."
It is unlikely that Amherst students will be forced to join the military for the war on terrorism, but I think we should at least be grateful to the men and women of the armed forces and their families, who are making true sacrifices on our behalf.
Lincoln Mayer '04
War hawks must read up
For the overstuffed, idealistic, head-in-the-clouds conservatives on campus, several of whom have littered the
opinion page recently with their fiction, the following resource may prove helpful. There is a website, publication society, etc. relevant to the discussions of the last weeks, organized by Ramsey Clark, former United States attorney general. Such a big name should appeal to the honorable patriots. The International Action Center can be found at www.iacenter.org. One other source of intelligence is www.zmag.org.
I have a suggestion for those who do not know what people are talking about when they cite the case of sanctions against Iraq and insist on pursuing alternative sources of information in order to understand the current crisis, for those who don't understand why everybody does not love America with all their heart and all their soul, and for those who cannot fathom why people all over the world would wish on us, America, a taste of what they feel they have lived under for decades and longer. Please scroll down on the left side of the screen until you reach some areas of interest, or look up the books listed on the right.
Certainly, some of the articles on the sites will not be agreeable to everybody, but there is a great deal of information, and I've heard the cry of many a good, honest and principled conservative who has searched in vain for people who know as much as they do about our world.
It is unclear to me why myriad conservative reactionaries are angered, not by the increasing repression of rights of speech in our country, but by the exercise of those rights. People all over the country are being maligned or even attacked and disciplined, by the government or by other institutions, for expressing their opinions. People are being rounded up. Not much of this will make it into The New York Times.
It is hard to imagine what "conservatives" are afraid of, for their cause is already won, their glory already packaged. Their opinions are dominant, flooding the news and media; their feelings occupy the countless and crazed hearts of the mysterious and alleged American majority, whose reputed will to consume the materials of violence has already stressed the stockpiles of meaning and myth manufacturers. They seem to have an unantagonized life available to them, one that is over-not underrepresented. It is strange that they would fear the very few who have not been too discouraged to disagree in public, and who do so in such an innocuous forum as a public meeting, a college campus, a drooling poster.
Ryan Senser '02E