During my first year at TCU, I read an op-ed in the student newspaper from a man who was in TCU's ROTC program. Among other things, he said that he wished the United States were in another war because maybe our citizens would become more united and more supportive of their government. (At the time, the government in question was the Bill Clinton presidency, combined with the Republican Congress that had taken hold under Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America.") This prompted a letter from me to the student and a rather testy exchange in which the student proceeded to use, of all people, his dad as a reference for his views . . .

It is 6 years later, the United States has entered another war, and I don't know if this man is alive or dead.



I remember the weeks after 9/11--I remember the prayer vigils, the atmosphere of mutual support, and the students who, for the first time in their lives, sang "God Bless America" without a hint of sarcasm. I remember the almost unanimous support of programs that have since become household names in our culture--Homeland Security, Condition Yellow/Orange, and "detainees." I remember the Afghanistan war and the outpouring of support to our troops as they fought (and won) a campaign that, historically, had proved unwinnable for any other invading power.

Then we invaded Iraq and found no WMD's.

Then we started hearing about Guantanamo Bay . . . Abu Ghraib . . . the secret prisons . . .

Then our list of enemies expanded to include names like Zarqawi and Nasrallah and Ahmedinijad.

Then, one by one, our allies began to fade away . . .



Was it always this way? Was there ever a time when Americans remained united behind a cause throughout the course of a long struggle?

I doubt it.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington . . . they had their opponents, too--and those opponents did not just sit quietly and whistle "America the Beautiful" when the United States was enduring times of great stress and hardship. (Lincoln, in particular, had a great many enemies, some of them within the military . . . and Roosevelt was confronted by the NAACP during the height of World War II concerning the practice of racial segregation in the armed forces.) Did this criticism serve to undermine Presidential authority, however, or did it serve to challenge, and therefore improve our response to national (and international) crises?

This is a question I ask myself as I consider that young man's op-ed and our eroding national consensus on the war, the presidency, and overall values this nation should adopt. Personally, I think that vocal dissent--even forceful vocal dissent--is healthy and necessary, especially during the pursuit of something as important, arduous, and potentially devastating as a war. As a citizen, I think that a government that decides, in my name, to engage in a course of action that will place my economy, my acquaintances, and my honor in jeopardy cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed recourse to the necessities of war as a defense against critique.



Will we ever grow out of the idea that an America without dissent is an America we should support? I don't know . . .

All I do know is that the more corpses we generate, the more pieces of our national integrity we sacrifice, the less safe I feel.