Article Contributed on: 3/16/2007 1:46:46 PM
The 1960s are anything but simplistic and wistful.
Neither is the War in Iraq.
A response to Prather's blog "Trashing Our Troops" and growing up in the 1960s in Greensboro, North Carolina
Al-Quaeda is much less of a threat to this country than the President and the Congress blatantly neglecting the Constitution which they were sworn to uphold. The corporate corruption that has entered our government is probably even more of a threat than Al-Quaeda.
As Navy men who served and protected this country, the men in my family feel that attempts to curtail freedom of speech and the current lessening of basic civil rights are disrespectful of the military. They reason that they swore to protect this country and this country is built on the Constitution so that disregard for the Constitution is counter to the notion of protecting this country. Undoubtedly, other men and women in the military feel differently. Assuming, however, that
all military men and women feel that debate should be stifled or only carried out in private is an unexamined assumption indeed.
In my opinion, curtailing freedom of speech in the name of supporting our troops is disrespectful for the very freedoms which they protect, some with their very lives and bodies. Al-Quaeda is not sophisticated enough to know how the Constitution and the freedom of speech is deep within the heart of most Americans. Al-Quaeda and the Taliban seek to silence this very freedom in their communities. Whether or not I agree with the small group in Westminster, I feel it is simplistic to equate all dissent and honest discussions of the Iraq war with childish pranks.
Sometimes, Congress and citizens petitioning their Congress may need to check a president and prevent an ill-considered act. That is what separates our country from Communism, dictators & tyrants and all other bad forms of government. Only Congress has the power to declare war*, even if they have shunned that responsibility in the name of political expediency or financial self-interest. The founders of this country purposefully created these checks and balances. The Congress owes our troops the respect to step up to their constitutional duties and do what is right for this country above what they think will get their party and themselves elected. Even if individual Congress members disagree on what they think is right, they have sworn a duty to uphold the Constitution. Debate is part of their sworn duty.
Despite H.J. Res. 114, on October 16, 2002, Congress shirked their responsibility. If Congress had truly debated in the first place, we might not be have entered a war on false premises and started ignoring Afghanistan where the Taliban is today gaining control while attention and resources are diverted to Iraq. Our citizens and our goverment owe it to our troops to think and question, then and now. Only with such intellectual engagement by the American people and Congress can our troops know that their duty is not the result of some ill-advised whim. Respect for the troops is not a matter of mindlessly standing on the sidelines and shouting cheers as if war were a sports event.
I find Pather's arguments simplistic and hyperbolic. A difference of opinion well-argued is a delight to read. I love to read well-reasoned articles from writers with whom I disagree because they sharpen my mind and my argument. Equating a difference of opinion to openly advocating the defeat of our military and country is jingosim at best.
I do not have the answers, myself, to the ramifications of funding cuts or how to successfully bring a conclusion to this war. I do know, however, that if we stifle debate and do not engage differing opinions, then we will never find the best answers. Hearing only one side of an argument is like a half a brain. A half-functioning brain does not work that well. We owe our troops a whole brain --- the best of
BOTH sides, actively engaged and talking with one another.
For those of us who have lived through the 1960s, particularly in the South, those times were anything but silly. Prather's characterization borders on offensive. Civil disobedience was then an act of courage resulting in possible bodily harm that moved our nation forward into honoring the goals of its Constitution and dreams of freedom. If anyone had ever stood by a man doing his job --- a simple act of weeding someone's garden --- and seen a stone thrown at him because of the color of his skin, like I did, I do not think anyone would so easily call the 1960s a silly time, wistfully regarded today. Perhaps the Westminster group's tactics were ineffectual and simplistic, but the 1960s were a time when Americans had the courage to wrestle with the issues and create freedom.
During that time the National Guard was called into my hometown of Greensboro, NC after the Woolworth's sit-in. They were stationed on the tops of buildings with guns. As a child, it was quite scary to see my town occupied like this. Quite often, my father drove my baby-sitter Emma over the color boundaries. She had babysat my father and then, after I was born, she babysat me. She was also a long-time family friend and we attended weddings and funerals of both families. I am sure that being employed as household help was part of the discrimination back then but our deep personal love for this woman also demonstrates how issues then were not so cut and dry. In the 1960s, the simple act of turning down a street could endanger your life.
My father asked Emma to sit in the front seat of the car because the front seat was a place of respect. She was an adult and I was a child and belonged in the back seat. I will never forget the look of terror in her eyes. As a very young child, all I knew was that I loved Emma and I could not understand why she was so afraid. The image became a little clearer as the car moved to another part of town. National Guard troops were stationed on tops of buildings with very big scary guns pointed right at us. Later, I came to understand that seeing a black women in the front seat of a car with a white man and a little white girl in the back was a sign of trouble to onlookers and might have even meant that we were hostages being kidnapped. Back in the 1960s, the simple act of taking home your baby-sitter was an act of courage. Back then the National Guard also displayed courage by not acting on the the simplistic presumptions of the time.
To the credit of the National Guard who were stationed there, they kept their focus on their duty and showed much restraint during some very explosive times. Their presence assured some order but their restraint allowed our country to move forward towards its goals. Placed in a difficult situation, they demonstrated wisdom by thinking and using their intelligence instead of quickly responding in a knee-jerk manner without assessing each situation. They honored this country by carefully balancing the need to protect in the case of riot with the need to preserve freedom of speech and assembly. I feel gratitude many years later that they did not feel threatened by the civil disobedience nor did they personalize the debate (even if they felt conflicted inside). Instead, the National Guard in Greensboro had the wisdom to respect the debate that engaged our country. For that and their service, these men were unnamed heroes ----- just as well as the now named four people (Joseph A. McNeil, Franklin E. McCain, William Smith and Clarence Henderson) you see sitting at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
Are our military and National Guard today any less courageous or less heroic than those men in the 1960s? Do they need to be coddled by restricting citizen freedoms? Are they so weak that words and honest debate threaten them? I do not think so. I think it dishonors today's military to consider them anything less than the men and women who haved served this country before them.
* Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress.