Serving the GW Community since 1904

The GW Hatchet

AN INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER SERVING THE GW COMMUNITY SINCE 1904

The GW Hatchet

Serving the GW Community since 1904

The GW Hatchet

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter!

Officials name senior vice president, chief of staff
By Fiona Riley, Assistant News Editor • March 26, 2024

Column: Dissent can definitely be patriotic

I think it is necessary to point out at few problems with Michael Lucinski’s column (“Dissent is not by definition patriotic,” Nov. 10, p. 4).

To start with, I was astounded by Lucinski’s statement that people claiming “dissent is patriotic” do it because of a “discomfort (which) stems from their instinctive shrinking back from America’s assertion of power in a portion of the world where the world demands an assertion of U.S. power.” I would like to know whether it is at all possible that this “discomfort” comes from something else. Perhaps it comes from the difficulty in facing an administration currently drowning itself in flags, an administration which has delineated the black-and-white mantra of “with us or with terrorists” time and time again, an administration which, by transitive property, has linked Saddam Hussein to September 11 so effectively that 53 percent of Americans said they believed Saddam was “personally involved” in the attacks (Gallup, August 2002). Faced with this administration, the anti-war crowd is absolutely correct to aggressively defend itself against being perceived by the easily swayed public as Osama bin Laden’s Fifth Column.

I also was appalled by the triumphalism of the whole article. The idea that President George W. Bush has “conceived, argued and successfully concluded” the war is basically the “Twilight Zone” mentality found among the White House neo-Con backroom staff, the Karl Rove types behind the scenes running the show. As for “argued,” I would propose that maybe it was not so difficult to convince Americans of the need for war, given the aforementioned poll results.

It also did not help the anti-war camp that the public faces invited into the debate were often celebrities, usually matched up against ex-Pentagon Staff or neo-Con intellectuals. (I am sure Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn has a position on the war, and if anyone can find me a tape of either on American television articulating it for so much as five minutes, I would be most grateful). As for “successfully concluded,” most analysts, including many pro-war voices, are quick to admit that defeating the Iraqi army was the easy part. It’s dealing with the irregular resistance springing up now, not to mention attempting to rebuild in any meaningful way, which will prove maybe a tiny bit more difficult.

The only thing that I agreed with was Lucinski’s statement that “true patriotism involves meaningful sacrifice.” However, this statement was part of a general soliloquy against dissent, contrasting patriotism and “risking all” with “mere dissent.” I ask Lucinski to reflect for a moment on the “chicken hawks” in the Pentagon. These self-ordained paragons of patriotism are risking what, exactly? Or, in the opposite case, what about dissenters who have “risked all?” My grandfather has been anti-war since the beginning of the Iraq controversy; he fought in World War II.

Obviously, one cannot take “dissent” and “patriotism” and act as though they cannot exist simultaneously. Whether or not dissent is “by definition” patriotic is generally irrelevant; flag-waving is not “by definition” patriotic. The more important fact here is that dissent can be and often is patriotic, whatever “patriotic” actually means.

-The writer, a junior majoring in international affairs, is currently studying in Brussels, Belgium.

More to Discover
Donate to The GW Hatchet