TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/021191/02119911.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 8.5 KB | 171 lines

                                                                                THE GULF WAR, Page 52

THE HOME FRONT

Land That They Love


Patriotism and its symbols dominate the debate over the gulf war
as both sides emphasize concern for the soldiers and for the
fate of the nation

By NANCY GIBBS -- Reported by Blake Hallanan/San Francisco,
James Willwerth/Los Angeles and Richard Woodbury/Houston


    Of all ennobling sentiments, patriotism may be the most
easily manipulated. On the one hand, it gives powerful
expression to what is best in a nation's character: a
commitment to principle, a willingness to sacrifice, a devotion
to the community by the choice of the individual. But among its
toxic fruits are intolerance, belligerence and blind obedience,
perhaps because it blooms most luxuriantly during times of war.
Tyrants know this. It was Hitler's henchman Hermann Goring who
noted that "all you have to do is tell people they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."

    All the more remarkable, and encouraging, that in America's
domestic debate over the war in the gulf, patriotism has not
taken sides. Supporters of the use of force have no monopoly
on national pride, any more than protesters have sole claim to
the desire for peace. Antiwar demonstrators are waving flags,
not burning them, praising and praying for the troops even as
they condemn the policies that sent them to the front. SUPPORT
OUR TROOPS, read signs at a huge Washington peace rally two
weeks ago; BRING THEM HOME NOW. Their opponents, meanwhile,
carry banners saying WE WANT PEACE, BUT NOT WITH SADDAM.
Between the extremes of NO BLOOD FOR OIL and NUKE IRAQ, the
middle ground is filled with mature ambivalence.

    This attitude explains why the overriding theme on the home
front is concern for the soldiers and compassion for their
families. For three weeks now, Americans have sought, with
anthems and flags and bells, with care packages and valentines
and yellow ribbons, to find ways of expressing solidarity with
those most at risk and for their loved ones. There is a measure
of atonement in this by a country that treated Vietnam veterans
with unjustified contempt. "When these guys come back, we're
going to make sure they come back to a hero's welcome," says
Doug Swardstrom, a pro war investment counselor in Los Angeles.
"We're going to organize the biggest parade they've ever seen."

    In the meantime, there is a parade of gestures. A tattoo
parlor in Houston reports a 40% jump in business, mostly for
military designs. A waitress in Rocky Hill, Conn., told her
boss he could fire her if he liked, but she would not remove
her red, white and blue ribbon. In Pine Bluff, Ark., Deborah
Hurt has sent personal letters to nearly 400 fellow Arkansans
serving in the gulf. "I had seven brothers; six were in the
military, and four served in Vietnam," she says. "I saw what
they came home to. I made a promise when I was 16 years old not
to let that happen again."

    Not all the gestures are symbolic. Military recruiters
report a surge of inquiries in the first days of the war. Many
callers wanted to be sent to the gulf -- particularly,
recruiters noted wryly, those who turned out to be overage or
underqualified. At some stations, like the Air Force recruiting
office in Quincy, Mass., the number of enlistments almost
doubled. "I haven't seen anything like this since I began
recruiting," says Technical Sergeant Rick Shellene. "A lot of
kids feel it is about time to start standing behind the
country."

    Every war trails memories of the last one, and so these days
are filled with recollections of Vietnam. In 1970 construction
workers in New York City dropped hot rivets on passing
demonstrators. The alienation was complete as protesters
lionized Ho Chi Minh and vilified the American Establishment.
If generals routinely fight the last war, activists protest
against it, and old radicals are still to be found. But this
time, they are the exception. "The movement has learned from
its mistakes," says the Rev. Emory Searcy Jr. of Atlanta,
director of National Clergy and Laity Concerned, an umbrella
church movement of 15,000.

    The greatest lesson is that protest and patriotism may be
thoroughly intertwined. A forest of flags rustles above the
crowds at both pro- and antiwar rallies across the country.
Devotion to America, peace activists argue, is what inspires
them to march, to protest the loss of young lives and the
distraction of war that deflects energy and money and attention
from battles being waged closer to home. What is victory worth,
they wonder, if returning soldiers cannot find a house or a job
or health care once the battle ends? "We're saying support the
soldiers, bring them home alive," says Searcy. "There's nothing
unpatriotic about that. There isn't the gap between the troops
and families and the protesters that there was with Vietnam."

    Both the pro- and antiwar camps include some unlikely
converts. Among those marching against the President's policy
are veterans and families of soldiers in the gulf. Recent
rallies have absorbed all manner of fringe groups (Lesbian
Zionists for Peace, for example), but they have also tapped
into mainstream movements that cut across lines of race, class,
age and gender.

    On the other side, the breadth of support for Bush reflects
in part the depth of horror at Saddam Hussein. "Saddam is the
perfect villain, and he keeps on proving it," says Anne Lewis,
a devoutly liberal Democrat who is the unlikely founder of the
Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, formed to rally
Americans around the President's policy. "Having been quick to
criticize Administration policy in the past, I wanted to weigh
in when I thought what they were doing was right." Some
historians, however, warn of a honeymoon period. "If the war
goes badly," notes University of Rochester political scientist
John Mueller, "or the costs are too high, support will drop."

    One reason for moderation on both sides of the debate is
that the issues are so complicated, the information so limited.
There is a willingness to reserve judgment and reject jingoism.
"People are confused about this war," says Ray Neufeld,
president of a Chicago greeting-card firm that plans to ship
250,000 valentines to the gulf. "They're watching real danger
and potential death in their living rooms. Should they go on
with their ordinary lives? Putting a ribbon on a mailbox or
sending a card is something they can do."

    While there is solace in the symbols, there is also room for
a larger political message. Just as peace activists hope the
move ment will inspire a new era of social protest, their
opponents are looking for a return to traditional values.
"There's something about saying the Pledge of Allegiance and
singing patriotic songs that makes us reflect on how far we've
drifted from those values America was founded on," observes
Marilyn Loeffel, president of FLARE, a conservative,
interdenominational group based in Memphis. She condemns the
protesters as hypocritical and unpatriotic: "These people who
are all for peace are ready to fistfight."

    As ever in a time of inflamed rhetoric, there is plenty of
hypocrisy to go around. "It is often easier to fight for
principles," Adlai Stevenson once noted, "than to live up to
them." Any claim to patriotism is made grotesque when it is
expressed by torching Arab-owned stores. Or when it cheers war
so long as someone else fights it, or protests violently
against violence, or drives 900 miles at fuel-wasting speed to
march beneath a banner that reads NO BLOOD FOR OIL. "War is the
gravest moral question a nation can face," says Eduardo Cohen,
41, a former Vietnam infantryman who is now an antiwar activist
in San Francisco. "This isn't a time to end discussion."

    Fortunately, those who are watching from the sidelines sense
a new respect for the right to disagree. It is this position,
perhaps, which has prompted even the President to refer
benignly to the protesters and not impugn their motives. For
it is apparent to anyone who watches and listens carefully that
the present debate, in all its complexity, is worth protecting.
Prowar and antiwar activists must recognize what they have in
common if their patriotism is to have any more meaning than a
bouquet of balloons drifting above the blare of marching bands.