thedrifter
02-28-03, 06:34 AM
02-26-2003
Crossing the Line from Dissent to Treason
By William F. Sauerwein
Several trends that have emerged in the current anti-war protests are deeply disturbing to those of us who believe that Saddam Hussein poses a genuine threat to U.S. national interests in the Middle East.
The anti-war protesters claim they love their country, yet they seem more allied with Iraq. Many of them use the looming threat of war as an excuse for touting causes arguably unrelated to the war.
It is time to confront the protesters with one fundamental question: Do their personal and political agendas blind their judgment between legitimate dissent and potential treason?
I watched the first anti-war protests on Jan. 18, 2003, on the C-SPAN network. While I believe many protesters genuinely oppose the war, much of their reasoning ignores reality. Eventually, this demonstration became a litany of various radical left causes, few having anything to do with the issue of war.
One factor conspicuous by its absence was any reference to Saddam Hussein and his responsibility for the current crisis by refusing to conform to the many U.N. resolutions demanding his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. Rather, these speeches quickly became platforms for anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, Bush-bashing and outright anarchy. I eventually changed the channel, considering my time better spent on other things.
Last weekend the news media again covered mass anti-war protests across the United States and around the world. Again, the main theme of the protest leaders seemed to be anti-Americanism, with no call for Saddam to follow the U.N. resolutions. Evan Coyle Maloney, of Brain-Terminal.com, used his personal camcorder to expose this anti-American, anti-Bush agenda.
The final straw came from reading Ed Offley’s column, (“Protesters Should Support - Not Abuse - Military Families,” DefenseWatch, Feb. 12, 2003), which cited a Marine wife in Illinois who recounted several incidents where protesters had verbally abused military family members.
But the underlying issue is more grave than sloppy thinking or boorish behavior on the part of anti-war activists: Crossing the line from opposing U.S. policy to providing support for an enemy.
In his book, Following Ho Chi Minh: Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel, former Gen. Bui Tin credits the American anti-war movement with stiffening the resistance of the North Vietnamese army against the U.S. military and Republic of Vietnam in the late 1960s. The NVA high command acknowledged that the January 1968 Tet Offensive was a military defeat, but a strategic victory thanks to the anti-war movement. Bui Tin stated that recovering from this defeat took until 1971, including using NVA regular troops as Viet Cong guerrillas.
Nevertheless, the growing American anti-war movement encouraged North Vietnamese leaders to continue the war. Bui Tin wrote:
“Every day our leadership would listen to the world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us the confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”
Most of the protesters blamed the United States for all the suffering in Southeast Asia while closing their eyes to enemy atrocities. Today’s protesters appear to be doing the same thing with Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to defy the U.N. Security Council resolutions despite the fact that he agreed to these provisions following his defeat in 1991.
Many protesters are already in Baghdad, with more vowing to go in the coming days. Like those who previously went to Hanoi, they have encouraged Saddam’s supporters. Saddam has proclaimed this protest as an “Iraqi Victory,” and a reason for his people to resist.
Today’s protesters either do not see, or do not care, that Saddam is using them. They are merely pawns of Saddam, who truthfully views them with contempt. They claim solidarity with the “Iraqi people,” proclaiming themselves “human shields” for protecting Iraqi military targets. They have publicly expressed a preference for protecting Iraqi troops from American troops.
Does this constitute providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or maybe treason? Will they go one step farther and take up arms against their own nation’s military forces?
Meanwhile, many politicians, focusing on the 2004 presidential election, are using the anti-war movement for their own agendas. Members of Congress, instead of exhibiting leadership responsibility, are following the current trend for political posturing. Even politicians who in the aftermath of 9/11 declared that “politics stops at the water’s edge” seem unconcerned with the possible effect of their rhetoric on troop morale and the national will.
I fully encourage reasoned debate in the halls of Congress, especially concerning war. Our political leaders should explore all options, work out policy details and pass appropriate legislation before shots are fired. However, especially in foreign policy matters, the nation must present a united front. For any politician to place his or her political viability above national security and the lives of our troops is reprehensible.
Particularly troubling is the conduct of former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who have forgotten the responsibilities of their special status as they make partisan attacks on the Bush administration.
Both of these men have little room for criticizing any president’s foreign policy. Carter’s foreign policy gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian hostage crisis. Today Iran, formerly a staunch ally, is a member of the “Axis of Evil,” claiming nuclear capabilities.
Then we have Clinton, who is scurrying to absolve himself from any responsibility for our current problems. He oversaw a significant reduction of our military forces and the handcuffing of our intelligence agencies. Clinton approved the appeasement policy with North Korea in 1994, and “allowed” China to obtain our latest missile technology.
In 1998, Clinton used virtually the same rhetoric as Bush for eliminating Saddam when he launched a largely ineffective air campaign against Iraq.
Despite genuine theological differences between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, Muslim fundamentalism operates with the active support of rogue states, including Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly laid out the case against Iraq in the United Nations, including allegations the regime has sheltered an al Qaeda terrorist cell. As the sole superpower, the United States must take leadership responsibility for this task. This task will be difficult, time and resource consuming and may entail harsh actions.
My question is which side will the current “anti-war” movement support in this war. One of their favorite sayings is, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Does that statement include them as well, since they claim opposing American policy is patriotic?
By showing an affinity for Saddam while blaming their own country for the conflict, anti-war activists are at risk of crossing the line that separates honest dissent from treason. In taking out their hostilities on American military families while supporting Iraqi forces, they appear no better than John Walker Lindh, the naďve student of Islam who found himself taking up arms with the Taliban against U.S. soldiers, and is now paying a heavy price for that act.
The situation today is far too serious for misplaced toleration of those who in the name of peace encourage a brutal dictator. It is time for the rest of us to challenge them, call them out, and confront them when their words and actions aid and abet the enemy.
William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.
Sempers,
Roger
continued........
Article.....(“Protesters Should Support - Not Abuse - Military Families,”
Crossing the Line from Dissent to Treason
By William F. Sauerwein
Several trends that have emerged in the current anti-war protests are deeply disturbing to those of us who believe that Saddam Hussein poses a genuine threat to U.S. national interests in the Middle East.
The anti-war protesters claim they love their country, yet they seem more allied with Iraq. Many of them use the looming threat of war as an excuse for touting causes arguably unrelated to the war.
It is time to confront the protesters with one fundamental question: Do their personal and political agendas blind their judgment between legitimate dissent and potential treason?
I watched the first anti-war protests on Jan. 18, 2003, on the C-SPAN network. While I believe many protesters genuinely oppose the war, much of their reasoning ignores reality. Eventually, this demonstration became a litany of various radical left causes, few having anything to do with the issue of war.
One factor conspicuous by its absence was any reference to Saddam Hussein and his responsibility for the current crisis by refusing to conform to the many U.N. resolutions demanding his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. Rather, these speeches quickly became platforms for anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, Bush-bashing and outright anarchy. I eventually changed the channel, considering my time better spent on other things.
Last weekend the news media again covered mass anti-war protests across the United States and around the world. Again, the main theme of the protest leaders seemed to be anti-Americanism, with no call for Saddam to follow the U.N. resolutions. Evan Coyle Maloney, of Brain-Terminal.com, used his personal camcorder to expose this anti-American, anti-Bush agenda.
The final straw came from reading Ed Offley’s column, (“Protesters Should Support - Not Abuse - Military Families,” DefenseWatch, Feb. 12, 2003), which cited a Marine wife in Illinois who recounted several incidents where protesters had verbally abused military family members.
But the underlying issue is more grave than sloppy thinking or boorish behavior on the part of anti-war activists: Crossing the line from opposing U.S. policy to providing support for an enemy.
In his book, Following Ho Chi Minh: Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel, former Gen. Bui Tin credits the American anti-war movement with stiffening the resistance of the North Vietnamese army against the U.S. military and Republic of Vietnam in the late 1960s. The NVA high command acknowledged that the January 1968 Tet Offensive was a military defeat, but a strategic victory thanks to the anti-war movement. Bui Tin stated that recovering from this defeat took until 1971, including using NVA regular troops as Viet Cong guerrillas.
Nevertheless, the growing American anti-war movement encouraged North Vietnamese leaders to continue the war. Bui Tin wrote:
“Every day our leadership would listen to the world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us the confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”
Most of the protesters blamed the United States for all the suffering in Southeast Asia while closing their eyes to enemy atrocities. Today’s protesters appear to be doing the same thing with Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to defy the U.N. Security Council resolutions despite the fact that he agreed to these provisions following his defeat in 1991.
Many protesters are already in Baghdad, with more vowing to go in the coming days. Like those who previously went to Hanoi, they have encouraged Saddam’s supporters. Saddam has proclaimed this protest as an “Iraqi Victory,” and a reason for his people to resist.
Today’s protesters either do not see, or do not care, that Saddam is using them. They are merely pawns of Saddam, who truthfully views them with contempt. They claim solidarity with the “Iraqi people,” proclaiming themselves “human shields” for protecting Iraqi military targets. They have publicly expressed a preference for protecting Iraqi troops from American troops.
Does this constitute providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or maybe treason? Will they go one step farther and take up arms against their own nation’s military forces?
Meanwhile, many politicians, focusing on the 2004 presidential election, are using the anti-war movement for their own agendas. Members of Congress, instead of exhibiting leadership responsibility, are following the current trend for political posturing. Even politicians who in the aftermath of 9/11 declared that “politics stops at the water’s edge” seem unconcerned with the possible effect of their rhetoric on troop morale and the national will.
I fully encourage reasoned debate in the halls of Congress, especially concerning war. Our political leaders should explore all options, work out policy details and pass appropriate legislation before shots are fired. However, especially in foreign policy matters, the nation must present a united front. For any politician to place his or her political viability above national security and the lives of our troops is reprehensible.
Particularly troubling is the conduct of former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who have forgotten the responsibilities of their special status as they make partisan attacks on the Bush administration.
Both of these men have little room for criticizing any president’s foreign policy. Carter’s foreign policy gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian hostage crisis. Today Iran, formerly a staunch ally, is a member of the “Axis of Evil,” claiming nuclear capabilities.
Then we have Clinton, who is scurrying to absolve himself from any responsibility for our current problems. He oversaw a significant reduction of our military forces and the handcuffing of our intelligence agencies. Clinton approved the appeasement policy with North Korea in 1994, and “allowed” China to obtain our latest missile technology.
In 1998, Clinton used virtually the same rhetoric as Bush for eliminating Saddam when he launched a largely ineffective air campaign against Iraq.
Despite genuine theological differences between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, Muslim fundamentalism operates with the active support of rogue states, including Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly laid out the case against Iraq in the United Nations, including allegations the regime has sheltered an al Qaeda terrorist cell. As the sole superpower, the United States must take leadership responsibility for this task. This task will be difficult, time and resource consuming and may entail harsh actions.
My question is which side will the current “anti-war” movement support in this war. One of their favorite sayings is, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Does that statement include them as well, since they claim opposing American policy is patriotic?
By showing an affinity for Saddam while blaming their own country for the conflict, anti-war activists are at risk of crossing the line that separates honest dissent from treason. In taking out their hostilities on American military families while supporting Iraqi forces, they appear no better than John Walker Lindh, the naďve student of Islam who found himself taking up arms with the Taliban against U.S. soldiers, and is now paying a heavy price for that act.
The situation today is far too serious for misplaced toleration of those who in the name of peace encourage a brutal dictator. It is time for the rest of us to challenge them, call them out, and confront them when their words and actions aid and abet the enemy.
William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.
Sempers,
Roger
continued........
Article.....(“Protesters Should Support - Not Abuse - Military Families,”