Protesting the Protesters: Who’s Anti-American Here?

Two weeks into the war, and emotions are percolating right on schedule. Actually, maybe a little ahead of schedule. It’s been duly noted that the Vietnam War protests took some time to build up steam, while the Persian Gulf War protests should be at 212 degrees Fahrenheit in no time.

The quickened pace is helpful, because now we can get on with the business of choosing up sides for the two teams: Traitors (anti-war) versus Loyal Americans (pro-war). These were the same squads that squared off over Vietnam, and although the early line favored the Loyal Americans, the Traitors put on a late surge and eventually helped end the war.

Both sides are showing early strength in Orange County. From UC Irvine to Laguna Beach to Yorba Linda to Santa Ana, demonstrators have come out on both sides of the Gulf War, reducing this most complex of conflicts to signs on some posters and bedsheets. Honk if you support the war; give the finger to a protester if you don’t.

At UCI earlier this week, things got down to basics. A pro-war activist yelled “Coward!” at an anti-war protester, who retaliated with “Warmonger!”

Maybe we should change the names of the teams this time around.

The irony of all this, one suspects, is that the vast majority of people probably aren’t sure which side they’re on. Public opinion polls on this war are like snapshots from an Instamatic--they may catch you at a given moment but within seconds of being caught by the lens, your position may shift, your expression alter.

That is, the public may subscribe to the idea that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant worthy of being deposed, but at what price?

The pro and con arguments just get more confusing from there. How much bombing damage can we justify doing to the Iraqi citizenry? How much damage are we doing to the future of Arab-American relations? And always the ultimate question: How many soldiers and pilots and sailors should we ask to risk their lives?

For some reason, questions like that confound some people. To them, public protest of this war is tantamount either to aiding and abetting the enemy or just plain stupidity.

Bob Dornan, our beloved congressman and self-proclaimed military expert, seethes when he talks about war protesters. But then, the war is fairly elementary to Dornan. As he told Dan Rather on the first night of the war, he’s flown “every aerial asset over there” and knows what he’s talking about.

As in: “I suspected that what has happened (on the first night of the bombing of Iraq) might happen, and that is before sunset tomorrow it will probably be over. . . . This time (unlike in Vietnam), we used our assets properly and it’s over in probably less than two days. We’ll never have to commit our ground forces.”

Dan Rather said he hoped Dornan was right.

That likely won’t be the last misguided missile fired by Dornan.

But the point isn’t to keep score on who shoots widest of the mark. Doubtless, anti-war protesters will trot out some misrepresentations and half-truths of their own.

The critical issue is the temper of the debate over the war.

To people like Dornan, war protesters should hang their heads in shame because they help Saddam’s cause.

This is the same old sorry game that Dornan and his ilk usually play. Why is it always the people who wave the flag the most are the ones who most want to stifle public debate and who have the least confidence in the American public to decide matters of great public policy? They say they want the freest of societies, when, in fact, what they really want is the most controlled.

Rather than sober debate on a war, it’s easier to brand dissenters as loonies or disloyal Americans. If this war has an unfavorable outcome, rest assured Dornan et al. will blame it on either the media or ignorant protesters who didn’t share their particular insight into the intricacies of global relations.

One wonders what Dornan would do if a President decided to send troops into Nicaragua to reinstate the leftist Sandinista government. Judging from his statements about patriotism, you would have to assume he’d support the President and the troops.

Oh, well.

Diatribe nearly over, dear reader, but since I’m already wound up:

Flush with the scent of quick victory on Day 1, Dornan went on to tell Rather: “He (Saddam) is in a separate category, a serial mass killer with Idi Amin and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler, and that’s what is not being gotten across to these poor Americans who are deluded and out there on the streets thinking we’re an evil country for shedding blood for oil. It will be over soon, and a lot of people are going to have to make some apologies.”

As Ronald Reagan used to say, there you go again. These poor deluded Americans who aren’t smart enough to know what’s going on. And if they aren’t smart enough to know what’s going on, they shouldn’t be out in the streets protesting, eh?

As usual (and this poses his greatest threat to potential voters), there’s a kernel of truth in what Dornan says. Saddam may well be a Stalin. The war may well be over soon. Some of the protesters may be deluded (although after listening to Dornan and his predictions, it’s hard to separate the deluder from the deludee).

But if he’s right on those points, he’s so wrong on his conclusion: When it’s all over, no one in this free society will owe anyone else an apology for speaking their mind on this war.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.