By Captain Gene Thomas Gomulka
[Have an opinion about this article? Visit
the deployment
discussion forum.]
Dear Gene-Thomas, My husband was killed in Iraq when I was pregnant with our son. Even though I was proud of his courage and commitment, I still marched in Washington to protest the war. Do you think I lessened his sacrifice by doing so?
Maria
---
Dear Maria,
Many people involved in this recent protest, like yourself, lost loved ones in the war. It seems to me that the protest was not calling into question the honor or dedication of those who died, but rather the justification for our past and continued involvement in this region. Your husband died to protect the rights and freedoms we as Americans enjoy, including our “freedom of speech.” You would be dishonoring his memory if you did not exercise that right that he gave his life to protect and defend.
When a man who was quoted as opposing the march said, “A major portion of our country supports our troops and the war,” he misjudged many of the marchers who, like yourself, support those deployed in the past and present to Iraq and Afghanistan. A patriot can strongly support those who serve in our country's armed services while, at the same time, oppose our country's involvement in a particular conflict.
A CNN / USA Today / Gallup poll released last week found that only 34 percent of Americans think the war is winnable; 32 percent support Bush's handling of the war; and 63 percent support a full or partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A high-ranking, retired military leader has a son who just returned from his second deployment to the war zone. Was it unpatriotic of him at the time of the invasion to question the rationalization provided by the Commander-in-Chief that the war was necessary to rid Saddam of weapons of mass destruction? Or, was he truly patriotic by asking if our actions met the following criteria for a “just war” that many protestors feel were never met in 2003 when we invaded Iraq:
- Just Cause – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
- Last Resort – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
- Probability of Success – there must be serious prospects of success.
- Proportionality – the use of arms must not produce evils or disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
- Discrimination – there must be a distinction between combatants and noncombatants.
After weapons of mass destruction could not be found in Iraq, President Bush shifted the rationale for the war, saying it was necessary “to give democracy a toe hold in the Middle East.” His rationale reminded me of President Woodrow Wilson who rallied the United States to enter World War I by saying the nation had a duty “to make the world safe for democracy.” Unfortunately, because the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so unjust and harsh, our involvement in “the war to end all wars” unintentionally contributed to the rise of Hitler and Stalin, two of the most murderous dictators in history.
Those who support the war in Iraq, as well as those who oppose it, would be wise to take a lesson from history and recognize the importance of bringing our current involvement to a conclusion with justice and honor lest the twenty-first century witness the rise of dictators and terrorists far more dangerous and evil than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Gene-Thomas Gomulka
Columnist and author whose books are available at www.plaintec.net
[Have an opinion about this article?
Visit the deployment
discussion forum.]
Have a question? Write Gene Gomulka at letters@plaintec.net
© 2005 Gene Thomas Gomulka. All opinions
expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily
reflect those of Military.com. |
