A Modest Apology From The Anti-War Movement

To the editors:

Robert S. Rogers’ critique of the anti-war movement is so penetrating that I have been moved to apologize on its behalf (Op-ed, “Creeds, Not Slogans,” Oct. 29).

He rebukes the carriers of the anti-war banner for dwelling upon “intangible” effects of the ongoing war in Iraq, such as the thousands dead Iraqi civilians and the deterioration of healthcare, jobs, and education in our communities due to unprecedented war-bloated deficits. We are truly sorry; from here on, we vow to leave such intangible problems to the philosophers.

Blinded by our fanciful concern for intangibles like maimed Iraqi children and our uninsured, unemployed neighbors, we in the anti-war movement seem to have neglected to speak up for “actual people” like the U.S. troops in Iraq. Outrage at the steadily mounting U.S. casualties couldn’t possibly explain why veterans and widows of killed and wounded G.I.s were featured speakers at the recent protests in Washington and San Francisco. Or why virtually everyone who the press interviewed at the events decried the Bush administration’s horrible abuse of our troops. Or why the protest was titled “Bring them Home Now!” No, we have utterly failed to lend attention to the plight of American soldiers.

In addition to our neglect for actual victims of this unjust war, Rogers explains how our “over-hyped” concerns for intangible victims have shamefully “monopolized public attention to the exclusion of the issue of how it affects our troops.” Duh! When was the last time you saw headlines like “2 GIs Killed North of Baghdad” (surely last week) or “Rocket- Propelled Grenades Kill U.S. Soldier in Iraq” (not a day before that) make the front page? We are embarrassed for not realizing that with so much talk of all the infant mortalities in Iraq and the homeless on our streets, there’s simply been no room.

Matthew R. Skomarovsky ’03

Oct. 29, 2003