n I found Tara Stoll’s reasoning against protesting a war illogical (“Terrorists are winning this war on D.C.’s streets,” page 7, Sept. 26).
First, Stroll undermined Cindy Sheehan’s plight through misrepresentation. Sheehan does not seek to deprecate her own son, or the soldiers. She voices her opinion that the Iraq war is unjust. Even John Crawford, a national guardsman who recently wrote “The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell,” cites the miscommunication, shoddy equipment and senseless death of the Iraq War. According to Stroll, Crawford’s own book denounces his own sacrifices. Protesting is just as democratic and patriotic as writing a conservative article at BU.
Second, the comparison of Iraq protesters and Vietnam protesters is a faulty syllogism. Equating the waning support of the Iraq war with the hostile mood toward our own troops is incorrect. While troops coming home today expect greater appreciation, surely they aren’t spat upon and heckled as Vietnam vets were. Protesters today champion the soldiers, and challenge the war.
Third, the argument about when to debate a war uses the same logic that would have kept slavery and the Nazis alive. The “wait-till-it-passes” method does not work with politics, especially democracies, (or hurricanes, for that matter). If no one questioned authority or challenged the status quo, no culture would change or advance. Surely, Tara, you do not want America to become as stagnant as the progress of the Iraq War.
Cody Gantz COM ’07
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
