Last week, I went to the anti-war candlelight vigil that is peacefully held at 7:00 p.m. at the Allen Street Gates every Wednesday. With this being a college town, full of 40,000 students, I expected there to be a decent student crowd. Historically, universities have been the sparks that ignite national protests.
I wouldn't imagine that Penn State in 2005 would be an exception -- the Iraq war has been getting more and more unpopular as time goes on. Public opinion has, overall, turned against it.
It makes sense that people would care. More than two years after our leader stood on an aircraft carrier in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, the American body count is tragically close to 2,000, and the war continues to cost $5 billion per month. The citizenry is getting anxious, and I thought that would be reflected in Penn State students.
Instead, I walked up to the candle-lit sidewalk and found a small, friendly group of almost entirely State College residents. The only Penn State student in attendance -- a lone graduate student -- probably dragged down the mean age by at least 30 years.
So why don't we care?
Do students still honestly believe dissent is unpatriotic? Are we afraid to publicly show our faces in protest? Can we answer private opinion surveys honestly but fear being pegged as radicals within our community?
Worse yet -- are we simply lazy?
All of these things probably factor in, but we must also consider the larger failure of the anti-war movement in this country. In order to represent and mobilize the majority, the anti-war movement needs to change. And it needs to start with its leadership.
Cindy Sheehan is the latest standard-bearer for the anti-war movement. To her credit, she has succeeded in drawing attention to growing discontent. She is not, however, the correct person to represent the ever-increasing group of jaded Americans.
An effective mainstream anti-war movement doesn't come from this sort of leadership; it shouldn't simply voice the views of a radical faction.
You do not have to be a pacifist to be against this war and the way it is being managed. You don't have to blame Israel or be against the war in Afghanistan. You can be glad Saddam is gone and you don't even have to advocate pulling American troops out of Iraq by tomorrow.
It is really important that we have a mainstream anti-war movement that actually works, one that actually represents the majority. We need to question the credibility of our commander in chief, question how we're handling the insurgents and the many ethnicities of Iraq, question whether more time in Iraq will help us accomplish our goals and even question what our goals are.
Doing so would not be unpatriotic; in fact, it would be the highest form of patriotism.
We need a forum for the people who are thinking, "Well, hey ... this isn't right."
Personal opinion on Iraq varies so much that even those who vehemently disagreed with getting into the war, the reasoning behind the war or our post-invasion preparedness now think, "Well now that we're already there, what is there to do about it?" Even views such as these need to find their place under the new anti-war umbrella.
It's essential to question the integrity of leadership that may have misled us into a war -- especially because those very leaders are still leading us in that same war as casualties and costs mount. It's a battle of information. After all, what do we really know if we can't trust the people who are informing us?
Our ignorance gives the government permission to do whatever it wants. Democracies are accountable to public opinion, and it doesn't seem like Penn State is holding up its end of the bargain.
Anti-war is now mainstream, it just doesn't know it yet. And sadly, neither do Penn State students.
The people who are standing with candles at the Allen Street Gates every Wednesday night are not radicals. They're just regular citizens, concerned about our future, our present and especially our troops.
So what's stopping you from joining them?
