Pro-Peace Activists Are Pro-Troops

To the Editor:

The first important point I’d like to communicate is that most, if not all, “pro-peace” activists are also “pro-troops.” For the media or any other group or individual to portray them otherwise is an absolute falsehood — with questionable motives. Such accusations also undermine serious efforts to bring to light issues and policies of the current administration, policies which warrant scrutiny and exposure to the public at large.

I’ve not heard a single antiwar protester defend the behaviors of Saddam Hussein, his sons, or any other miserable, ruthless, or ungodly tyrant. The regimes of such dictators have been universally despised and criticized. In Daniel Gaita’s letter (March 28), he asks “…where were you and your ‘give-peace-a-chance’ friends while the tyrants and terrorist regimes continued to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of civilians?” I’m sure he would discover that many of them (us) have been involved with organizations such as Amnesty International, The Southern Poverty Law Center, and other political watchdog and humanitarian organizations both at home and abroad; or writing letters to our representatives, attempting through the democratic process to effect change in the world. But CNN, Fox, or the other networks wouldn’t put those images in your face on TV because, after all, where’s the drama and sensationalism in that?

One of the criticisms of this war is, “Why this, why now?” It’s no secret that Saddam Hussein has been a thug all along. In fact, he initially obtained certain biological materials that he used against his people through the Reagan-Bush administration back when we sought Iraq’s assistance against then-common enemy, Iran. Failure to acknowledge such an important detail is a sin of omission that clouds part of the opposition to this war.

Another pertinent detail that consistently has been misstated or ignored is that there has been no verifiable connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It appears that in the absence of capturing and punishing Osama bin Laden, Saddam was the perfect “stand-in” bad guy. Hence, the question, “Why this, why now?” No one disputes that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein (or Osama bin Laden, or any number of other megalomaniacal leaders in the world), but millions of free-thinking people around the world — scholars and citizens from democratic nations — allege what many Americans deny: There is a greater agenda in operation than the freeing of the Iraqi people. That should have been done 12 years ago. Not to admit that this war is in large part about oil, power, and protecting vital interests in the Middle East, is to practice denial of the highest order.

Another important question is how is it possible to find $75 billion to fund this war, when so many people in this country are unable to enjoy the freedoms we Americans take for granted — and that we send our troops to fight for in foreign lands? Teachers are losing jobs, vital programs are being cut, social security is in jeopardy, health care is still in crisis, the economy is in chaos (check investments if you have any). But missiles are a million dollars a pop and the war machine is well-funded.

We have succeeded in alienating a significant part of the world because of this war. It’s a good idea to try to stay united here at home. Character assassinations just keep us apart. Let’s not allow the media to lead us around like a herd of sheep. Who cannot be grateful for the freeing of the Iraqi people and the courage, commitment, and service of our troops. But to keep vigilant about any ulterior motives is necessary — as history has proven. Celebrate our unity, but be grateful for our diversity. God bless American and the world. Amen

Michael Luzzi

173 Boggs Hill road, Newtown                                      April 9, 2003