Debate Over U.S. Policy in Persian Gulf

In response to “Errors of ‘60s Dissent Mustn’t Be Repeated Now,” by Ruth Rosen, Commentary, Nov. 16:

I was insulted by Rosen saying that everyone in the peace movement was “so ashamed of our country’s destruction of Vietnam that rage was turned against inappropriate targets, such as universities, local police or the American flag.” How can Prof. Rosen, a ‘60s activist, contradict herself by saying that defacing the American flag and other symbols was inappropriate? Doesn’t she realize that the freedom of dissent involves the use of burning American flags, burning draft cards, blowing up police stations and other violent forms of dissent?

This country was founded 214 years ago by violent protest and dissent by dumping British tea overboard to protest high British import taxes, severely denouncing British policies through the colonial press and physically defacing statues of King George III on public squares. Rosen should do a complete 360-degree turn on her political philosophy and steer herself clearly away from her conversion to neo-Reagan conservatism, for it seems that Rosen’s priorities lay buried in the signing of the Paris Peace Accord of 1973.

DARIO WITER

Northridge