Here's a letter that I wrote to my local newspaper about the peace movement.

Have read, and let me know what you think.

In the last month or so, a couple of letters have appeared on the editorial-page of the paper linking the peace movement with appeasement and naïve thinking. Unfortunately, many people think that those who are involved in the peace movement, in one way or another, somehow support terrorists and dictators, and don't appreciate the efforts of our military people. Some seem to think that peace activists believe that if only we would wish hard enough, the people of the world would all hug each other, and we would see nothing but hearts and flowers. These opinions show a lack of understanding about the peace movement, and about the power structure in our world.

The peace movement, in its many diverse forms, is trying to make people aware of the behind-the-scenes goings-on that are keeping our world in an unnecessary state of injustice and nearly constant warfare. It doesn't naïvely assume that wars will all just go away. The movement is trying to save lives and make a better world by getting people to understand the forces that keep conflict going. If more people know the truth, our leaders will have less support in prosecuting policies that continue these disastrous conflicts.

The peace movement is not the cause of the massive problems we face in the world. The efforts of the peace movement did not create the monster that Saddam was, nor did it make him the military threat that he became. It was people in the Bush and Clinton administrations, and leaders in other nations, that appeased Saddam, gave him his weapons, loaned him money, and provided him intelligence that gave him the ability to secure his power. This support gave him the power to have a woman's face "pushed into a tub of acid" or to have a man "blindfolded and have his tongue sawed off." It was not the actions of the peace movement that made this happen. It was the actions of the very people that are in power today. The Bushes, the Cheneys, and the Rumsfelds of the world supported this barbaric dictator, and then made him a reason to occupy that Middle Eastern nation as a base of control in the region. Our leaders in Washington are repeating this error at this very moment in their support of the dictator in Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, who arrests and imprisons anyone he suspects of being a threat to his power. Many of those imprisoned are also tortured.

If anyone is not naïve, it is the peace movement for realizing how, in reality, our leaders are acting strategically around the world rather than altruistically as they claim to be. It is the peace movement that is not naïve for realizing how national and world leaders contribute to continuing the threats that we face. In contrast, it is naïve to keep thinking that our nation and our leaders always wear the white hats. Unfortunately, they don't.

Perhaps in the past, the peace movement made the mistake of blaming military personnel for war. Today, I think people understand much more clearly where the need for change is. Our good and decent military people do their very best to complete the missions that our leaders give to them. They show bravery, smarts, skill, determination, and genuine concern every day. It is the misdirected mission called the War on Terror that is given to them by our national leadership, that our military personnel are duty-bound to carry out, that needs to change because it is a mission that has no chance of succeeding or of leading to a better world for their children, or anyone else's.

Search on the Web for the results of a recent poll from the Pew Center for the People and the Press. The poll, called the Global Attitudes Project, shows a clearly rising negative view of people around the world toward America, and Americans. The War on Terror is having the reverse effect from what its stated intentions are. Think about how you would react if someone tried to impose their way of life on you through using their armies. Would you throw open your arms and embrace them? The inevitable results of this aggressive use of military power around the world will be increased threats, not increased security. Look at Iraq. The evidence of this effect is already beginning to show.

Instead, the US should restrain its military and intelligence forces to reduce the provocative effects they cause, and instead promote positive outreach by Americans to the world through, fair trade, exchange programs, and athletics. This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking. It emphasizes the positive, the American people, rather than the negative, weaponry and aggression. It is proactive. It is not passive. This viable approach is a better defense, because it is a much better offense.

The peace movement doesn't expect war to go away any more than it expects crime to go away, or for there to be no fires to be put out the world. What the peace movement is striving for is a world in which the military option truly is the last option, not the primary tool of international relations. It strives for a world in which human rights and freedoms are given precedence over the power and profit needs of governments and corporations. It strives for a world in which all people can raise their children, and make a living, without having to fear that a threat lurks around every corner. It strives for a world in which economic policies create the possibility of widespread prosperity. It strives for a world in which fewer young men and women turn to terrorism, because they are not given a reason to hate.

The peace movement has a much better chance of achieving these worthy goals than does the unrestrained use of military power. Increased peace is a cause worth working for, and one in which all Americans, civilian and military, must take part in, in any way they can, because it benefits everyone.

Universal