Gandhi Not Old-School
The logic used by proponents of violent protests is the logic used by the Bush administration in its war on Iraq [Violence and Protest, April 9]. Both are justifying violence by saying that, unlike other means, it is effective. Whereas Mr. Bush is too impatient for diplomatic negotiations, Craig Rosebraugh likewise is too impatient for the old-school Gandhian approach.
There is no question that political violence works, but theres a fine line to be drawn between a political protest and what I call household terrorismunlawfully using force to coerce and intimidate society. Just like Mr. Bush, Mr. Rosebraugh is convinced that God is on his side, that his cause merits arson, threatening reporters, and fighting the police. Justifying violence by effectiveness sets thoughtful protesting on a dangerous path of isolated, self- proclaimed martyrdom. The charismaticcall for using force in the name of justice is attractive, but it is deeply flawed, and one can only hope that protesters have enough common sense not to buy into it.
Maria Antonov
Seattle
A Portland Trailblazer?
Its interesting to see that Seattle, plagued by violent rioting in recent years, would offer Mr. Rosebraugh such a warm reception [Violence and Protest, April 9]. Even more interesting is the credence he is being granted among serious protesters. Currently teetering on the brink of disparity with the American public, if the anti-war movement adopts Rosebraughs tactics, it will lose all credibility. A significant portion of Americans who are indifferent toward the war will close the book on an organization usinginherently contradictorymethodsto achieve peace. This reaction is human; I observed a similar reaction in my middle-of-the-road friends who expressed their disappointment in protesters vomiting on a San Francisco state building and clogging the citys financial district.
Its not surprising to see old-school Gandhian techniques being swept under the rug. Intelligent dialogue is an archaic invention of a more compassionate generation. In an age of instant gratification, a generation that gets most of its news during MTV station breaks has no time for discussion. I encourage Rosebraugh to pick up his club and start swinging toward the future. Hopefully in doing so, he will become the bad example, not the brave Portland trailblazer.
Justin Cook
Anchorage, AK
Working-Class Heroes
At a time when much of the media provides our citizenry with a kaleidoscopic and cacophonous array of jingoistic, disingenuous reporting on the Iraq war and its uncertain aftermath, Rick Anderson does a noble deed and reminds us how quickly todays men and women in uniform can become tomorrows pariahs [Crippled Home Front, April 9]. The erosion of services throughout the VA medical system is the clearest example of the real and widespread disregard Bush and company have for the common soldier. In the final analysis, they are as expendable as any other piece of worn-out, used material.
In The New York Times (April 10), columnist Bob Herbert wrote: There arent a lot of rich kids in that desert. The U.S. military is largely working-class. The power brokers homing in on $100 billion worth of postwar reconstruction contracts are not. Indeed, the thought of esurient, swag-bellied corporate vultures further stuffing their own coffers in the wake of the horrors of recent weekswhile money evaporates for veterans hospitals and related programsis enough to make us all sick. Hopefully Anderson, resolute reporter that he is, will stay on the trail of this sordid tale.
Joe Martin
Seattle
Vets Care Best Ever
I think Rick Anderson trivialized a very complex situation [Crippled Home Front, April 9]. The VA medical system was and is a political spoils system. Any discussion that doesnt acknowledge its political character is flawed from the beginning.
Some of the biggest villains are the veterans service organizations (VSOs). Usually theyre portrayed as the heroes. Andersons uncritical use of the Paralyzed Veterans of America presidents testimony is typical. While VSOs can and do provide useful services, they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Victims need organizations to represent them against a bureaucracy perceived as uncaring.
You dont try to reform the VA systems if you know whats good for you. The VSOs taught Edward Derwinski that lesson in 1992, and everyone involved learned the lesson. Clintons appointment of a prominent player in the VSOs as a VA secretary was a great symbol, but it reinforced in the minds of the professional staff at the VA who was driving the train.
The use of the number of veterans to examine the problem is ridiculous. Not all veterans are ordinarily served through VA facilities; retired veterans are an example. Veterans without a service-connected disability (that is, most of us) have a low priority at VA facilities, and rightfully so.
Medical care for veterans isnt perfect, but it is the best ever. When you compare it to the broad sweep of American history, this is the best care ever given to American veterans. This is not to minimize the myriad problems in the VA service delivery system, but a superficial, emotional discussion built around the unfortunate case of one veteran does nothing to either enlighten or move the issue forward.
Bill Crews
Washington, DC
