Christopher Mataka is mistaken in his ideas about war protesters ("War protesters undermine troops' actions overseas," March 26). The idea of protesting is a simple idea in itself; a group of citizens, educated to whatever extent on a certain action their government has taken, decides that their government is wrong for doing so and decides to protest. But in doing so, aren't these citizens undermining the fabric of the nation itself? Aren't these citizens neglecting their patriotic duty to stand by their country no matter what? Of course not. These citizens are exercising their rights as Americans to protest. Our soldiers deserve our support, but not because of the war on terror, but because if our soldiers didn't fight, then we wouldn't possess the right to protest. It is more unpatriotic to do nothing, to waste the opportunity that our nation's forefathers have given us by not voting in our elections, by not protesting against our government and instead watching the next episode of American Idol.

Mataka states in his letter "In order to protest against a cause one should have first-hand experience." This is wrong. An American citizen can protest because of the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Many veterans of the Vietnam War came back from the war to become protesters. The fact that this wasn't included in your argument seems to indicate a major flaw in your thought process.

Please understand that just because a protester doesn't own a military uniform doesn't mean he or she should not be heard.