In Defense of Defending Defense

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The December 14 issue of The Crimson contained a front-page article describing the "peace" rally and counter-protest which was held the previous Thursday on the steps of Memorial Church. I am writing to condemn the description of the counter-protestors--a description which was based almost entirely on innaccuracy and irrelevancy.

The only quotation from a member of the group of counter-protestors is when I am quoted as saying, "I don't think it's appropriate to hold political demonstrations on a church." This statement is completely trivial to the larger issue and was only offered in response to a reporter's question.

It should be noted that the reporter conducted lengthy interviews with me as well as with several of the other counter-protestors. At no time did any of us indicate that the rally site was a concern of ours. When asked this question I considered it to be completely irrelevant but chose to cooperate because the reporter had asked me, as well as other group members, many relevant questions.

The Crimson's choice to focus on this insignificant statement is indicative of its general treatment of any position at odds with the extreme left. It is likely that this treatment represents a subtle desire to ridiculously stereotype the counter-protestors, who consisted of moderate as well as conservative members and non-Christians as well as Christians, as extreme Christian-conservatives.

The Crimson also reports, "At one point, the counter-protestors sat down on the steps of the church, which were serving as a stage for the rally. They were chased off the steps by rally organizers brandishing a permit."

The truth is that several of us did in fact sit on the steps, which was perfectly within our rights to do. After being rudely told to leave by a rally organizer, we asked to see the permit which they cited as justification for our removal. As later verified by the Harvard University policeman present at the rally, the permit only gave the group the right to assemble a large crowd on the steps of the church.

In fact, though we would have been perfectly within our rights to begin delivering speeches from the steps, we chose to move on to the grass in front of the church to avoid an ugly situation.

Further, The Crimson attempts to accuse our group of obstructing the view of the audience. This is again a blatant misrepresentation of reality. The only reason the audience's view became obstructed is because it moved forward to surround us at the urging of the organizers, in an obvious attempt to intimidate us.

Now, because the Crimson reporter, despite the knowledge obtained from his lengthy interviews, chose to trivialize rather than report the motivation for our presence, we will restate our reasons for supporting the presence of US troops in the Gulf and for counter-protesting the rally.

1) We do not feel that the violation of Kuwait's sovereignty and the subsequent rape, plunder and systematic dismantling of the country and all of its infrastructure is a matter which should be lightly dismissed.

2) We feel that Iraq's concerted effort to develop further biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is a tremendous threat to international security and the stability of the region. We emphasize that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had started a war with Iran, threatened to "burn half of Israel," executed a British journalist and massacred thousands upon thousands of its Kurdish citizens.

3) Though it is tempting for some to call this a war for American oil and to make cute rhymes such as "Hell, no, we won't go, we won't kill for Texaco," it is extremely naive not to recognize that the entire world economy, and hence international stability, is dependent upon oil.

Control of Kuwait and the subsequent intimidation of the other oil-bearing Arab nations gives Saddam Hussein virtual hegemony over OPEC. Control of Saudi Arabia would give Saddam Hussein one-half of the world's oil reserves and would elevate Iraq to superpower status.

We felt it necessary that a voice be present to respond to any misinformation at the rally. At one point, a speaker described the United Nations' membership of approximately 180 nations, stated that only 12 authorized the use of force against Iraq, and attempted to have the audience conclude that no majority of international support exists for the resolution. All of this completely ignores the fact that the vote occurred in the Security Council, which consists of only 15 nations.

5)Finally, we are angered by the way in which a rally ostensibly for the generic concept of "peace" and filled and nauseam with Vietnam-esque statements like "bring the troops home" was really an umbrella for the propagation of a larger political agenda.

As I had suspected would be the case prior to planning the counter-protest, the demonstration was teeming with propaganda meant to discredit the United States, President George Bush (who was referred to as a "liar"), the allies of the United States (in particular Israel), the Harvard administration and, of course, the dominant white male establishment. Christopher J. Picotte '92