Vietnam was different. You had a message, a purpose then: what right do we have to force our will abroad, especially when Americans aren't directly threatened? You were convincing when you damned Eisenhower's domino theory as abstract and irrelevant. You made sense when you argued that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were dying for no reason. And you were persuasive when you asserted that our involvement was morally wrong.
There was an aura of power then. The massive marches and protests drew the attention of millions at home and abroad. Each successive year saw your numbers swell and your media exposure expand. As we became more and more immersed in Vietnam, you became more and more dedicated to ending our involvement. Even during the violent times in New York, Chicago and Washington, your protests seemed legitimate and justifiable. Even those who disagreed with you respected your determination. And perhaps most importantly, you won.
This time, you won't. Life is different nowadays: Americans are afraid. The destruction of the Twin Towers and the ominous threats from al Qaeda have driven home the idea that even Americans are vulnerable. Not since the 19th century has war visited our own shores, and we will now do or legalize anything to protect ourselves. We know that we fought Iraq a decade ago, we know that Saddam Hussein longs for our destruction and we know that he probably has hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. In America's mind, that equals danger, and danger means action-pre-emptive action. As long as we perceive Iraq as a real threat, we will view your protests as misguided.
You haven't tailored your arguments to win over the American public. We've heard the traditional line: war on Iraq would create more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, but fear of others' opinions of us has never been an American concern. Neither has fear of unilateralism-so don't try telling us that we need foreign support or that pre-emptive strikes set a bad precedent. To convince us, you have to hit us where it hurts: money and security-and the Bush administration holds the ace on both of those issues.
You've always been careful to say that you condemn the Sept. 11 attacks as well and that Saddam Hussein is a brutal murderer. Maybe then, you think, the rest of America will take you seriously. But though it may seem unfair, Americans can't help but see you as unpatriotic. Righteous anger, however misguided, has always been the American response to affronts, and our reaction to Sept. 11 was no exception. The country became a vast panorama of American flags, President Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed, and we went to war. We didn't want to hear about our flaws-we wanted Osama bin Laden's head. And now that Afghanistan has fallen and Iraq dominates the headlines, we want to finish the job Bush Sr. began in 1991. So know that when you protest the upcoming war in Iraq, you stand steadfastly against public opinion.
But if you still insist on protesting this war, despite my advice, remember one lesson from the Vietnam era: after the war is won or lost, don't blame the army. Your cold, distant reception to our returning soldiers in the '70s was a wrong that still affects veterans today and an injustice that will not soon be forgotten. Once we win or lose this war and our soldiers return, do all you can to undo the wrong of the '70s.
I offer you one more piece of advice: find a way to make your position more politically acceptable. There are plenty of good reasons to be hesitant about invading Iraq (the cost to taxpayers or the problem of building a democracy there afterwards) that you consistently fail to give proper credit. Instead, your arguments revolve around pure pacifism, a principle that Americans have never accepted. You need to avoid the image of being the defenders of Saddam Hussein and enemies of the United States. It's a hard road to walk, but give it a shot. And for God's sake, remember that this ain't Vietnam.