Countering the Anti-War Movement
[Guest Blogger Cpl M from soldiersperspective.us taks about the "Gathering of Eagles"]
The anti-war movement became the norm in America during the Vietnam War. Protests literally changed the public’s view of the war and brought subversive behavior into the mainstream. Fast-forward to now and we are once again faced with an anti-war movement that is just as subversive, and perhaps more dangerous, than the movement of the Vietnam War.
There seems to be a lack of effort to let our fellow Americans know that support is still the majority opinion. Just as the anti-war movement is mobilizing to protest the war, the supporters need to mobilize to combat the protests. Anti-war protesters think they can change our foreign policy as they did in the 60s and 70s, but they need to know that there is still a majority of Americans that do not want any change.
One such effort to counter the protesters is currently underway. Protesters plan to march from the Vietnam Memorial Wall to the Pentagon. It is widely assumed that some of the protesters will attempt to deface the Wall as they defaced the Capitol building back in January. A group calling themselves the Gathering of Eagles plans to protect the Wall from any harm at any cost.
“We’ll be there to act as a countervailing force against the Cindy Sheehan-Jane Fonda march from the Vietnam Memorial to the Pentagon,” retired Navy Capt. Larry Bailey said. “We will protect the Vietnam Memorial. If they try to deface it, there will be some violence, I guarantee you.”
This is the message that needs to be going out to the anti-war movement. Patriotic Americans will not stand by and let you use something as sacred as the Vietnam Memorial Wall for your own political gain. Patriotic Americans will not let you use the name of our finest warriors to further your own self-serving goals. Our veterans will not stand by and let anyone bring dishonor to our country.
I salute the Gathering of Eagles for their efforts and pray that they will continue to counter the anti-war protesters.
Tracy
February 9th, 2007 at 4:06 pmThis is an incredible idea. I wish I lived closer and could participate. It is wonderful to see that someone (lots of someones actually) will be protecting The Wall. It would be shameful if something happened to it.
Thank you for sharing this Cpl M
Nephi
February 9th, 2007 at 4:16 pmThere are many, many patriotic Americans who take part in the current anti-war movement. And the recent report by the DOD inspector general suggesting the pentagon manipulated intelligence to make a case for Bush’s war in Iraq is sure to cause even further patriotic Americans to join the anti-war movement.
MissBirdlegs in AL
February 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pmThis is a terrific idea and needs to be widely published.
Nephi, you should look behind that headline (do a little research - don’t take everything the media feeds you as truth) before you continue to make such statements.
Nephi
February 9th, 2007 at 5:02 pmMBinA,
I think I read the news article fairly accurately but, then again, I am not infallible. What I read was the DOD report suggested (as I stated above) that the pentagon manipulated pre-war intel. If this is not what the report states, then I stand corrected. Do you have a different read?
Terri
February 9th, 2007 at 6:40 pmThanks for making us aware of this CplM. This is one of the rare times that I still wish I lived in that area of the country, so that I could participate. This should be spread far and wide!
Cpl M
February 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pmBefore Nephi tries his favorite tactic of stearing discussion from the real topic. . .
How would all of you feel if anyone did deface the Wall like they did the Capitol?
Flag Gazer
February 10th, 2007 at 1:46 amBeing from the VietNam generation and having a couple of friends whose names are on The Wall, I would be horrified if it was desecrated. The anti-war crowd desecrated them when they were alive, let them rest.
I did not understand it then, and I do not understand it now - this urge to destroy things and talk about peace at the same time.
Cpl M
February 10th, 2007 at 9:52 amYou’re right, FG. I don’t understand the destruction/peace talk hypocrisy, either. Perhaps they feel they’ll get more attention if they break the law.
SealPatriot
February 10th, 2007 at 9:55 amEven though I do not doubt that there are plenty of patriotic people who are against the war, there are also plenty of patriotic people who used enlistment as a ballot if they couldn’t vote in the most recent elections and their fight is so worth standing up for. Just as much as the moms of fallen servicement deserve answers and for politicians to ask about the ground situation in a warzone. I know as a fact that the Inspector General’s claims aren’t correct, even if people feel his argument is interesting and compelling. There is plenty of investigations to counter his claims and plenty to prove noone in the government misconstrued or that any of the prewar intelligence was tampered with or presented to the public incorrectly. For a matter of fact the Inspector General’s claims shouldn’t be taken seriously until it has enough sufficiency to make it to a court or to a case for impeachment, but it should definately be monitored and paid attention to. Just because the Inspector General says something doesn’t mean that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and it is unlikely that he has the crediblity or a high enough position in this government to discredit all the investigations that state that this government didn’t tamper with intel or misconstrue prewar facts.
yankeemom
February 10th, 2007 at 11:04 amI’d be there if I could!
“How would all of you feel if anyone did deface the Wall like they did the Capitol?”
I’m still angry about the Capitol steps! That is not Free speech - it’s vandalism.
That does not come under the heading of “peaceful assembly” either.
Nephi
February 10th, 2007 at 11:55 amBack on point, might I just add that for every anti-war nutbag who would deface the Wall, there are many, many more patriotic anti-war Americans who would be equally as appalled and outraged as the rest of the folks on this site. I think it is wrong to characterize all anti-war Americans by the actions of a few - and for tyhose that do, you are no better than the MSM for which you despise!
And now back off point: “[SealPat knows] as a fact that the Inspector General’s claims aren’t correct, even if people feel his argument is interesting and compelling.” SealPat, can you enlighten me as to your factual basis for this assertion? Just how do you know as a fact that the IG’s claims are not correct?
Cheryl
February 10th, 2007 at 12:06 pmYou don’t have to be in DC to show solidarity with our vets who will be protecting that most sacred monument, the Vietnam Memorial. Counter-protests are being organized. Those of us who understand the gravity of the situation today, the reason why the fight was brought to the Mideast, and to show support for our fine military, need to participate. It’s time to show the world that not all of America agrees with those that the MSM glorifies. Sorry if I’m a little forceful. I am damn tired of liberals and anti-America sentiment.
Nephi
February 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pmCheryl,
Might I remind you that President Bush, as recently as last week, conceded the monopoly on conservative, pro-war patriotism. In other words, according to Bush himself, one can be a liberal and anti-war and a patriot, too. Further, I think you will find that there are alot of anti-war Americans who are not anti-America as you suggest. To state otherwise relegates you to the same level of the MSM and a user of similar disingenuous tactics to make a point not supported by fact.
SealPatriot
February 10th, 2007 at 12:31 pmTHAT IS NOT A CONCESSION NEPHI! President Bush has always acknowledged the fact that people can be patriots and antiwar. He never said they weren’t. In fact when Cindy Sheehan was protesting outside of his ranch he said he respected and understood that the antiwar had good intentions. He never imposed his or anyone else’s prowar beliefs on the antiwar group.
SealPatriot
February 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pmHow do you know the IG’s claims are correct? I don’t believe them, but I will be respectful if they can be proven to be fact, but as I said in the post that there is plenty of proof to rebuttle his claim. When you have evidence proving the government did not misconstrue facts before the war began, to prove the oppositte is going to tough given that he will have to find proof that the investigations(there were 3 full investigations already) were fixed to say that the government didn’t tamper with evidence. Is there any proof that those investigations were false and set up? If so, then how is it that it was partisan when neither party has held enough power over Congress to influence votes or investigations? With the three investigations that were conducted honestly, how is the Inspector General going to prove them to be wrong or dishonest? How is it the president can manipulate intel when he isn’t the one who gathers it or even presents it to Congress in the event he feels the nation needs to embark on a military campaign? There is no doubt that he takes part in the process of the country going war, but that part can be belittled when you realize that when it came to this war in particular that the overall case the government made against Saddam’s regime was non-partisan, and international. In fact we had a yearlong debate investigating every peice of intel from our own intelligence services and intelligence services of other nations, and that the ones that seemed least credible and couldn’t be proven, could not be disproven as well. A good example would be the two peices of intel that were given to the president for his 2003 State of the Union, one was the U.K. Telegraph article and the other one was the British intelligence papers that I taly had at the time and we didn’t get until mid march almost three months after the State of the Union. Joe Wilson went to Niger the try and see if Saddam did try to acquire fissile material from the country, and he came back empty handed not being able to prove it nor disprove it. He couldn’t prove that Saddam didn’t want to get fissile material from Niger, but he didn’t even try to investigate the Telegraph’s intel in which the Governments of Uganda, Congo, Yemen, and others claimed that Saddam sent some people to try and buy fissile material from them, and these government’s claims hold more credibility given that they would be the countries that rogue nations with the desire to acquire Weapons would more likely go to if they wanted to purchase fissile material. Besides, like I said earlier, the president doesn’t make intel and he doesn’t present it to the other branches of government either.
Nephi
February 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pmSealPat,
First, I have been careful not to say that the IG’s claims are valid; indeed, I believe I have been careful to state only what the report “suggests,” and not not that the report is accurate - only time will tell on that point. But second, if Joe Wilson came back empty handed, then why the concerted, deliberate effort by Cheney and his dogs to discredit Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent? As a supporter of the military and with your personal goal of becoming a Navy Seal, aren’t you bothered in the least by what you are hearing through testimony during the Lewis Libby trial? It’s all part of the same game played by the Bush administration; and, as they say, “the chickens are just now a comin’ home to roost!”
Terri
February 10th, 2007 at 10:49 pmFirst off Nephi, PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!
For those who cannot make it to Washington DC on March 17th, they’re suggesting that you hold vigils in your area. I’m trying to get something organized here in the Fort Hood area, and have already got feelers out to the local VFW’s and American Legions to see if we can’t get them involved. It would be great to have vigils all across the Country in support of Gathering of Eagles.
CJ
February 11th, 2007 at 2:17 amIf I have anything to do with it, NO ONE will be defacing the Vietnam Wall without a fight.
Flag Gazer
February 11th, 2007 at 3:20 amThank you, CJ - I’m on the wrong side of the country to stand with you, but you will be in my thoughts and prayers that day!
SealPatriot
February 11th, 2007 at 9:41 amFirst off, I don’t really give a crap for the CIA, over the years they have been giving Navy Seals Intel that was useless! Besides, she was the one who sent him in the first place, and why is it that she sent him to investigate the intel on the British intel papers and not the ones on the U.K. Telegraph? Oh, and it wasn’t the Administration who exposed her. Libby was told that Wilson’s wife was a CIA intel analyst and that her husband was sent to Niger by her request by a journalist and not the government or those presiding in the government(I.E. Mr. Bush and his Admin.). Anyway, back on topic, I have two friends from my college’s conservative union going to Washington D.C. to be apart of the counter protest. It is very patriotic of them, because I wouldn’t blame them if they were afraid things could turn violent. Oh well, I guess that is worth it to speak your opinion and it would be shameful if people in this country were to not speak for fear given that the Iraqis went and voted despite fear. CJ, are you going to be in the counter protest? If so, take no prisoners!
Cpl M
February 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pmBack on topic, folks. This isn’t about the IG report.
Unfortunately for the anti-war movement, there are far more willing to vandalize, incite riots, and challenge police than there are willing to keep things like that from happening.
Terri
February 15th, 2007 at 9:13 amI agree with you Marcus. Unfortunately the threats to deface the Wall with red paint have been made and some of those people will do everything that they can to carry out such threats. The people who are planning to do such vile acts, unfortunately aren’t anti-war and pro-troops, but instead just hate-mongers who are using the anti-war protest to serve their purposes.
M
December 6th, 2007 at 1:50 amThis is an interesting discussion. Maybe my viewpoint will be interesting to someone else, as well. I am against the war in Iraq. In addition, I don’t consider myself a patriot. However, I am horrified by the idea of defacing the Vietnam War memorial, and I believe many people with similar views would also be. The purpose of the memorial is not to state that the Vietnam War was a positive endeavor, but merely to remember the lives of those who died in battle. My father was drafted into the Vietnam War when he was in his mid-20s, and had he not survived, his name would be on that wall. It seems tragic when people have goals such as peace or justice, yet ironically produce violence and injustice in their quest for a better world.