February 12, 2007
D.C. peace ralliers were pro-life, too
In a misguided effort to garner more media exposure, some anti-abortion activists have chosen to attack the local students and others, including Sarah Peake, who attended the recent peace rally in Washington.
An October 2006 Washington Post article cited a Johns Hopkins study that estimates Iraq’s “excess” death toll since the start of the war at 655,000. That is in addition to the 3,000-plus U.S. soldiers who have died in this fiasco.
My 16-year-old son spent 20 hours on a bus in addition to the time at the rally exercising his First Amendment rights, which his grandfathers, uncles, aunt and his father guaranteed to uphold with more than 135 years of honorable active duty and reserve military service.
Those who participated in the peace rally are very much “pro-life”: pro-lives of the military families who will endure the loss of their soldiers, pro-lives of the soldiers who will return from battle physically and emotionally scarred, and pro-lives of the Iraqi civilians sacrificed in an ill-planned war.
My mother often heard the lament “it’s not fair” for some perceived inequity. Her timeworn response was, “Get over it.” I commend the Cape Cod Times for its coverage.
Noreen Thompsen
Eastham
As one of the “callow youths” mentioned in a recent letter objecting to the anti-war demonstration, I write in rebuttal.
Perhaps, yes, before attending this march some of the youthful attendants could be called inexperienced at protesting and exercising their rights. However, to call the young people going to this rally callow by its “immature” definition would be incorrect, considering that it shows maturity and independence to make political and moral decisions.
Furthermore, I do, in fact, greatly support and honor the returning veterans and troops on the ground. Expressing opposition to certain military actions does not mean one does not support and honor those serving our country. I oppose the war, not for the reasons of my parents, but for my own. I think ignoring the requests of the U.N. and the deaths of so many of my peers is immoral and needs to stop.
The war has not liberated the Iraqi people. Before our invasion, the Iraqis feared the government; they now fear leaving their homes and sending their children to school. Some 650,000 or more Iraqis have been killed as a result of this war, and I hardly see that as liberation.
Claire Bangert
Harwich High School student
Young group inspired marchers in D.C.
It was our privilege to travel to Washington, D.C., the weekend of Jan. 27 with an extraordinary group of high school and college students to protest the escalation of the war in Iraq.
These young people wanted to be a part of this important demonstration, and it was their desire to go that motivated us to put together this last-minute venture. The large expense for transportation was offset by donations from members of our community who wanted to support our youth, or who were thrilled to have someone younger march for them.
We acknowledge these inspiring young people who made us so proud, and thank all who gave so generously. Additionally, our heartfelt thanks to the Earth House in Orleans, which coordinated our funds, donated space and helped us create wonderful signs to express our feelings about this continuing national and international tragedy.
Jennifer Smith
Orleans
John Bangert
Harwich
Democracy not about mindless allegiance
Ruth Keir’s Feb. 1 letter regarding the weekend war protest held a confusing interpretation of democracy. While she concedes the right of people to vote for representatives, she believes the actions of officials should never be challenged once elected.
On the contrary, I believe it is our constitutional duty to hold them to the highest of standards. It’s their job to represent the will of their citizens.
Our president continues to ignore his responsibilities to his constituents, 70 percent of whom oppose an increase in troops. The letter writer seems to have lost sight of the fact that the people who took part in the protest were exercising their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to free speech. Most of the children who took part are not yet old enough to vote, but they made me very proud. They took the time to participate in governmental decisions in the only manner made available to them.
Ms. Keir states that she would be proud if her son or daughter were killed in Iraq. This misses the point. These children are dying in a war that came about through lies and deception.
Mary E. Loebig
South Dennis
In such times, protest is civic responsibility
Perhaps Ruth Keir had the childhood experiences she cites in the USSR or 1930s Germany or Japan (Letters, Feb. 1).
The U.S. Constitution, fortunately, goes to great length to safeguard our right to protest and even to fight against governmental abuse.
If she reads Jefferson she will discover that the right to bear arms (which he sponsored) is about defense against repression by our own government.
George W. Bush is not the first president we have had who is incompetent or dishonest, and he won’t be the last.
When such a president kills and maims Americans by the thousands, despite the overt demands of a majority that he change his behavior, protest becomes a deep civic and patriotic responsibility. It is mandated by the need to cause such an irresponsible president to obey the will of the American people.
I protest to ensure that I can be proud of my country.
Carl Pitasi
Yarmouthport
An insult to youths who assert their right
With all due respect, Ruth Keir’s Feb. 1 letter was misguided and insulting to our young adults and to our democratic system.
I was very proud of all of the young adults who exercised their rights as citizens of this democracy. The right to assemble and protest events that directly impact the lives of our young adults is indeed the truest form of democracy. Freedom of speech and assembly – what wonderful aspects of a true democracy.
Not one of these young people expressed any negative feelings for our brave men and women currently serving in Iraq. On the contrary, the march was organized to express anger with the administration that took us into a war under false pretenses, lack of knowledge and corporate greed. These young adults are exercising their rights as Americans – we should all be proud of them.
Jan Leavitt
Hyannis
D.C. counterprotest barely worth mention
One measure of protest success is crowd size. Counting protesters is not easy, and few observers are impartial. A reporter once said that the best way to estimate rally numbers is to cut the organizers’ number in half, double the police number, and average the results.
Many papers, including this one, reported “tens of thousands” at last weekend’s peace march in Washington. Since anything over 20,000 qualifies, this is a safe but uninformative statement.
United for Peace and Justice, the lead organizer of the protest of the unnecessary (hence illegal and immoral) war on Iraq, estimated 500,000; the D.C. police reportedly estimated “tens of thousands.” Use of the above formula thus yields a guesstimate of 180,000.
But those who support the war can also stand and be counted. How many regional pro-war demonstrations have there been over the past four years? I believe the answer is zero.
The otherwise fine Cape Cod Times article of Jan. 28 stated, “Smaller numbers of counterprotesters were present.” I traveled the entire march route and saw zero counterprotesters; others who did all saw fewer than a dozen, or 0.00007 of the total – a small number indeed!
David Agnew
Harwich
A surge in Iraq, or a purge in D.C.?
I respect Thomas Sowell for his consistency. His conservative views never vary. Unfortunately, he is also and mostly consistently wrong. His last column, “The media to blame for tragedy in Iraq” (Jan. 19) is a prime example.
The decision to go into Iraq was not a media ploy but a political decision as have been most of the subsequent decisions. The former Army chief of staff advised former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that it would take 500,000 troops to invade and bring order in Iraq. He was ignored and then dismissed. To blame the media for the disaster in Iraq is as plausible as to claim that the moon is made of cheese.
The current plan to send an additional 20,000 troops into Iraq, the so-called surge, to stem the violence and stabilize the situation has as much chance of succeeding as thinking one can fly by walking faster. What is needed now is not a “surge” in Iraq, but a purge in Washington.
Albert C. Ronander
Yarmouthport
Voices must be raised against the Iraq war
Each of us is but one voice, but collectively we can stop this president from sending more young men to die in a hell hole of his own making.
Everyone agrees there are no good answers left to closing up this Pandora’s box, but it is clear that digging the hole you are in with a bigger shovel is not the answer. Our president has put us more at risk now, both militarily and economically, and we have squandered the ability to use other countries to exert their influence.
Throughout this war, each strategy has been colored with the rosiest of outcomes, with no contingencies if that scenario does not result. It is hard to forget “greeted as liberators,” “mission accomplished,” “last throes of the insurgency,” “we are winning the war,” “and there is no civil war.”
It is no different today. When Secretary of State Rice was asked what the plan was if this latest “augmentation” failed, she did not have an answer.
Call or e-mail the White House. Just voice your opinion in two sentences and you are done. America is a great country because its people have a voice. Use yours.
Shirley A. Frye
Falmouth
Bush seeks to put off defeat till he’s gone
The surge of troops to Iraq is being brought to you by the same people who said this conflict would last at most six months and be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues.
This so-called surge isn’t going to mitigate the defeat of America in Iraq, which is inevitable, but it is designed to postpone the defeat until someone else is president.
In a recent poll more than 70 percent of Iraqis interviewed wanted the American soldiers out of their country; 20,000 more troops will only add to this discord and continue the downward spiral of destroying more of Iraq infrastructure, increasing the estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilian causalities, and add to the number of American soldiers killed or maimed.
Our military is overextended and cannot absorb an escalation. Some soldiers are on their second and third yearlong tours. The stress being placed on the military family is just deplorable.
The administration has made many mistakes since 2003 and none can be reversed. It would be a disaster to add to those blunders. America should begin a phased withdrawal immediately and hold the Iraqi army responsible for its own safety. End the war now and put the blame for this catastrophe squarely where it belongs.
James A. Devine
East Dennis
Adding troops seems counter to all advice
President Bush has announced he will escalate the war in Iraq by sending more troops into the civil war. The president’s plan ignores the American people who voted against that same-old, same-old policy in November, and who continue to demand we bring our troops home.
It seems to me that over the past few weeks, the military, the generals, the independent panels appointed by the president, and almost everyone involved in the situation has said that increasing the number of troops will not help the situation, and in fact will almost certainly worsen it. Why then would the president go against the recommendations of his top advisers?
This clearly is a political ploy, and it must be stopped before more American and Iraqi lives and treasure are lost, and before America’s ideals and position in the world are trashed beyond retrieval.
Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must continue to question the president over this wrongheaded and dangerous plan, and do whatever needs to be done to stop it in Congress. The people are making their voice heard, and if the president isn’t going to listen, the Democratic Congress will.
Judith Barnet
Yarmouthport
Stop cheerleading and dig into D.C. lies
Your endorsement of Bush’s “surge” (Jan. 9) was shameful. Whom are you serving? What business interest benefits from “one more try” in Iraq? For, surely, the people of the United States do not benefit. The 21,000 soldiers who will die, be maimed, or have their lives ruined forever will not benefit.
It is time for the press to investigate the lies of the administration, rather than serve as its cheerleaders.
Candace Perry
Wellfleet
Fear the finger on the trigger
Weapons of mass destruction.
Who has them? We do. More than anyone else. All kinds – chemical, biological and radiological.
Who has the power to use them? George Bush.
Who has the power if something happens to Bush? Cheney.
Get serious. He can’t even handle a shotgun!
Do you feel safer?
Alan B. Reed
Hyannis
A 'surge' of troops can only worsen war
President Bush should reject the plan for a “surge” of troops to Iraq and instead begin serious planning for bringing troops home soon.
We believe the invasion of Iraq was immoral, illegal under international law, incompetently prosecuted, and without a clear objective. We predict that a “surge” of a few tens of thousands of troops for a few months will not be enough to overcome the insurgency and will only lead to more U.S. and Iraqi deaths, wasting huge amounts of money to add to our deficit, and postponing the time Iraqis will be forced to address their own predicament. We wonder what Bush’s plan will be when the “surge” has proved as catastrophically mistaken as the original invasion.
At this point all the options are bad, but bringing the troops home is the least bad. The president should end this nightmare now and start bringing troops home!
Larry and Jane Dingman
Eastham
Facts alone subvert Bush 'surge' strategy
Jan. 28 letter writer Chris Dyer expresses concern that the Times employs opinion rather than facts to direct readers’ views on the war.
Here is a short list of facts that have helped this reader make up his mind:
- Osama bin Laden is still at large.
- Mission unaccomplished – in fact, the “mission” changes regularly.
- Vice President Cheney (five Vietnam-era deferments) wonders if Americans “have the stomach for the war.”
- Our government tortures suspects – sometimes to death.
- Almost four years after beginning this war, we don’t even control the capital city.
I couldn’t ask another American soldier (never mind 20,000) to attempt the impossible in an urban battlefield with little or no understanding of the culture and language. But then, I’m not the decider.
Bob Rice
Brewster
Let other nations fight their own fights
Have you ever been “surged”? As a young second lieutenant stationed in Texas, I got surged in 1966 by then-President Lyndon Johnson.
My unit, along with 50,000 other GIs, was part of the first escalation of the Vietnam War. I spent 21 days on a troopship and then lived next door to a decent-size village of farmers in a rural part of Qui Nhon. Back home, I watched this small Asian country absorb one surge after another.
Today, I can honestly agree with President Bush’s May 7, 2004, quote, “Nobody wants to be occupied.” During my brief stay in Southeast Asia, I watched the Vietnamese people struggle to maintain a centuries-old lifestyle while the United States built up a staggering military presence that clogged roads with military vehicles and smothered the cities and towns of this country with American soldiers.
In the end, more troops did not make a difference. It took our government almost a decade to admit that this strategy of military escalation – today they call it surging – didn’t work.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes our current and future leaders to figure out that fighting other people’s battles is not what we should pay our soldiers to do.
Richard Conron
Bourne
