Before I begin, I would like to say that I have the utmost respect for Emerald columnist Kirsten Brock. I have spoken and debated with Ms. Brock on occasion, and her writing is some of the most cogent and well-written in the Emerald. I stopped attending the College Republicans because of the puerile behaviors of most of its members. Ms. Brock, on the other hand, was a civil and gracious exception to the norm.
However, I was shocked and dismayed to see Brock’s opinion piece in last Thursday’s Emerald (“Strike for Peace strikes out,” ODE Feb. 9). Her views highlight a disturbing trend in the Republican Party that I firmly oppose: A trend that warps and perverts the values and ideals upon which this country was created.
Ms. Brock states that we are not a peaceful nation, but a nation whose job is to “keep the peace.” I am intimately familiar with the founding documents of this nation, and nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it state the purpose of this country is to enforce international stability and peace. The United States of America was created to protect the natural rights of its citizens, not police the world. Brock’s assertions fly in the face of the republicanism, democracy and self-determination that spawned this nation.
I also disagree with her markedly neoconservative assumption that our well-meaning troops are merely a resource to be spent in the fight for “peace” and “justice.” This mode of thought justifies the use of our soldiers as a moral billyclub, enforcing the will of the United States’ moral majority. As a fellow Republican, I object to this cavalier attitude concerning our troops’ lives. They are willing to lay down their lives for our protection; we ought not use them to further our political goals.
Lastly and most unexpectedly, Ms. Brock’s column has some glaring historical errors in it. I would most respectfully like to point out that, in counter to her argument that “war has done a lot of good,” that war did not “end” slavery, fascism or communism. It would be unethical to so flippantly declare that they did, because all three of these things obviously still exist. Concerning communism, war did not even stall its advance. Unless this error was born of accident or ignorance, I must chide Ms. Brock for using such an unethical, yet obvious rhetorical device.
I do not wish to live or raise a family in a country that sees me and will see my sons as expendable resources in the fight for other people’s freedom. I will not live in a country that will co-opt my rights to guarantee someone else’s.
After Ms. Brock’s column, I will sign Bogart’s petition.
Peter Lytle is a University student.
