U.S. troops defend country by assuring success of liberty To the members of the Global Justice Project ('GJP'): As an alumnus of Boston College's Faith, Peace, and Justice program who (i) was in college at BC during the first Iraq war; and (ii) had then, and have now, close friends serving in Iraq, I share your compassion and concern for those American servicemen and women who have lost their limbs, and their lives in that conflict. Your protest of the "war" and, in particular, its focus on the presence of military ROTC programs on campus, however, is misguided.
Whatever your opinion of the United States' decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, do you really think the withdrawal of American troops now will end the war? More likely, it will only remove American troops from that country, resulting in further disorder and civil war at the expense of the lives and liberty of millions of Iraqis.
For all the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, American withdrawal from Vietnam was followed by mass murder of millions of Southeast Asians in Vietnam and in the killing fields of Cambodia. Do you think the result in Iraq will be any different?
Martin Luther King, Jr., said true peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of justice. By King's definition, Iraq, under Saddam, had neither peace nor justice. For all its violence and lawlessness today, the Iraqi people, with the help of U.S. troops, are trying to build an Iraqi society based on a rule of law. They are trying to establish justice and thereby peace. Certainly mistakes have been made and perhaps they have a long way to go, but are we Americans so callous as to say to the Iraqi people, "We're sorry, we won't do it. It's just too hard. Your lives, your liberty, cost too much. You're on your own." Is that the message you want to send to the Iraqi people, to Islamic extremists, to the rest of world?
You may remember President Kennedy's inauguration speech in which he said: "[w]e shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." You may not remember what he said a few lines later. He said: "[t]o those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required." Perhaps, as a nation, we have not fulfilled that pledge on every occasion. Nonetheless, it is this pledge the American troops are now seeking to fulfill in Iraq. I, for one, am not prepared to abandon Kennedy's pledge. Are you?
ROTC is a program to recruit and train America's best and brightest to lead our military, to protect our country and to fulfill that pledge. The men and women of ROTC, both the active servicemen and women who lead the training and the young officers in training have committed themselves to this cause.
The Bush administration deserves much criticism for its missteps in Iraq and if you disagree with the administration's policies, go ahead and exert your right protest on those policies. Public debate and discourse is at the heart of democracy, but the men and women of ROTC do not deserve your protest; rather for their commitment in time, in sweat, and in their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, they and their fellow servicemen and women deserve our honor, our respect, and our thanks for protecting the rights we take for granted, including your right to protest.
John J. Keene, Jr. BC '92
Redirect your moral qualms toward gluttony, injustice I was relieved to see The Heights provide a source of moderation and reason regarding Adrienne Reynolds' recent photo spread in Barstool Sports. The verbal assaults and self-righteous sneers that Reynolds has had to endure are completely unwarranted and utterly ridiculous.
What was she doing to earn such puritanical and overzealous attention? Simply put, Reynolds was doing what she wanted to do. Reynolds is an intelligent and mature young woman. I have heard from students that she is a sweet and charming alumni as well as a competitive law student.
Is it surprising to her critics that she is both attractive and educated? Matt Arnold's statement that Reynolds has "no moral qualms about posing nearly nude" exemplifies the common abuse of religious language to legitimize personal intolerance and sexist notions of proper female behavior.
On what is Arnold basing his morals? Maybe he would like to send Reynolds and the rest of us a copy of his guide book. Reynolds' individual action is assumed by Arnold, as well as others, to be a reflection on the rest of the University. To this charge I ask: Where are the moral qualms regarding the alcoholic gluttony and its behavioral ramifications here on our campus? Where is the moral outrage against injustices committed against people here and abroad?
Arnold makes yet another grievous assumption when he sarcastically requests Reynolds to abstain from selling her body to Barstool Sports because she can "do better things" with her education. Again, Arnold erroneously posits himself as a knowing authority by implicitly defining what is or is not permissible for a woman.
Perhaps Arnold's real complaint is against nudity in general? Evidently, his taste in proper attire did not prevent him from picking up a copy of Barstool Sports. Furthermore, his moral qualms that were espoused so proudly must have been suspended at the time he had his eyes fixated on Reynolds' photography spread, specifically devoting his attention and time through "Letters to the Editor" about " … her nude breasts."
Surely then, morals and complaints were the last thing on his mind.
Viet Nguyen A&S '08
Be the first to comment on this article!