Speaking out serves key duty

As a wildfire across a dry brush, conservative patriotism swept through the rank and file of America following Sept. 11. In signs of positive unity Americans--no, all humans--embraced each other and forgot their petty differences by choosing courage over despair. This is the true resilience of the American people and of humanity, yet amid the initial unification, there also arose a wish to squelch opposition of U.S. policies foreign and domestic. It continues to this very day. "Patriotic" Americans tell dissenters that if they do not like certain things about America, they should leave rather than advocate change. Such an idea is preposterous. Wanting those who do not automatically stand in line waving the flag to depart is a most heinous and unpatriotic belief in itself.

Such a petty, short-sighted desire defies the very wishes of America's Founding Fathers and her ideology, and thus can be viewed as a greater degree of unpatriotic sentiment than those who criticize. Thomas Jefferson believed that a democratic society properly functions only when her citizens are well-versed on the day's issues. Ben Franklin poignantly struck this very topic: "Those who sacrifice liberty for a bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security." If Americans do not willfully seek a multi-faceted discourse, then democracy no longer inhabits their minds.

Completely disavowing different ideologies critical of governmental policy contradicts American principles. Generalizing and verbally intimidating ideas opposing aspects of U.S. policy defeats the goals that liberty's defenders the world over sacrificed to achieve. When a U.S. citizen criticizes America, such disparagement should not immediately be perceived as zealous hatred of the stars and stripes but rather a dream that someday the nation will rise to new and greater heights. Of course, if Americans were to move elsewhere such as Afghanistan they would not enjoy as many freedoms, yet that is no reason to hide ideals. Diverse opinions stitch the fabric of American society and in a time of crisis and near despair, it is necessary to include all colors within the quilt's pattern.

Major positive social change rarely arrives through initial workings by the majority; instead a minority catalyzes improvement. The geneses of women's suffrage, civil rights, labor laws, environmentalism and withdrawal from Vietnam were midwifed by bold minority movements, who seized opportunities to better society. From the wilderness rose the voices of men and women such as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Rachel Carson, Susan B. Anthony and countless others fighting for largely unpopular causes, yet through history's progression proved most worthwhile. Margaret Meade aptly explained a minority's ability to exact change: "Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Do not forget that the American Revolutionary War was not initiated by a majority but spearheaded by a group of intellectual dissidents.

As our military operations in Afghanistan reach their second month, now more than ever, dissenting minority voices must rise in chorus to reign in a government acting without clear, defined plans while wielding the military might ultimately owned by her citizens.

Many Pakistanis are flooding to Taliban ranks. Moderate Islamic governments such as Indonesia are decrying American action. Muslim citizens the world over denounce America's tactics. Even worse, U.S. bombs are destroying essential supplies to impoverished Afghanis--three out of four Red Cross food warehouses in Kabul no longer exist due to America's "precision" air strikes. This is not to say that the Taliban should not be removed from power nor that non-military targets will be entirely avoided, but alternative strategies for victory need to be sought when these simplistic, reactionary methods no longer accomplish their intention.

The majority of America applauds continued bombing and military action even with the harshness of winter threatening. There are ever increasing dangers presented by such a course of action, if not entire contradictions to the current mission. Explaining U.S. strategy, Condoleeza Rice said, "This is an enemy that has to be taken on, and taken on aggressively, and pressed to the end and we're going to continue to do that." The Taliban, however, has already been declared neutralized according to various government and military officials.

Society's war is with terrorism, not a single oppressive faction; the world's ultimate nemesis is terrorism, not the Taliban. Between six to eight million Afghan citizens face food shortages and hundreds of thousands may die this winter if emergency aid does not reach them. To ignore Afghanistan's suffering population and disallow structured aid supplies from assuredly reaching those intended to receive it for the sake of satisfying America's bloodlust. Such an action may only inflame emotions against the United States and her allies from moderate nations whose populations allegiance hangs in the balance. Bombing should pause--if not for more than a few days--so that the United States can ensure Afghanistan's people receive winter supplies, reassess military and political operations before unseating the Taliban permanently and help win another battle. If we do not attempt to help the Afghan people survive winter's wrath, then we ourselves are no better than terrorists holding the world hostage with a narrow-minded political agenda.