I take issue with the terminology used by Jeff Switzer in his Saturday article regarding the protesters at the corner of Hewitt and Colby.
First, I would like to point out that no one on that street corner is against the troops and the implication that anyone might be against the troops is ridiculous and at the very least misleading. The anti-war demonstrators could just as easily be called pro-peace demonstrators. The opposing group could just accurately by called pro-war or anti-peace. However, Switzer chose to use the terms “anti-war” and “pro-troops.”
To imply that one group is opposed to our troops and the other group is not perpetuates the misguided belief that being against the war is equivalent to being against the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth, and being pro-peace is certainly the same as being pro-troops. After all, it is the pro-war Bush administration that sent our soldiers into harm’s way with inadequate body armor, unarmored Humvees, and ordered the use of Napalm, white phosphorous, and DU-enhanced shells – all of which our soldiers have been exposed with unknown long-term consequences. Is this what others consider “supporting the troops”? I don’t, no, I can’t believe this is what anyone would want for our soldiers.