Professor Zinn is a war veteran, and I respect that. But does he really think violence is the “easy way?” As an ISU alumnus, I recall being in school during the Gulf war, when George Bush the elder was president. I remember the first printed issues of the student counterculture paper, The Drummer, demonizing the president for his actions. That war was criticized on one side for being all about oil, on the other side for not “finishing the job” by getting Saddam.

Obviously, it is not easy to go about the business of war. But does Professor Zinn offer any other workable solutions? Is there really a way to reason with the other side in this, those who are willing to give up their lives in the corrupted name of their religion? Can we really reason with such superstitious madness?

Maybe Professor Zinn is just being “scholarly.” I guess it is important for college professors to say the scholarly thing, to encourage discussion and debate. Well, it is pretty simple to make a case against war. Images of war, such as hungry refugees, dead babies and blown-up Red Cross facilities make it look so wrong . who would argue in favor of killing children? Should we simply throw up our hands and give up our country?

Anyone in this freedom-loving nation who does not loathe the freedom-hating people who did these things is severely misguided. Those who would waste time debating against the rightness to actively defend ourselves are too erudite for decent company. To put it more bluntly, today’s peaceniks are part of the herd that must be swept aside and ignored for our country’s survival. This isn’t the 1960s; there’s no time for “love-ins” unless we want to watch civilization become a subject for a future Edward Gibbon history.

War is full of irony, such as killing to preserve civility. For now, we should remember the brave souls who gave their lives at Ground Zero, and sustain our sense of purpose and rightness until we’ve beaten those terrorists into oblivion.

Steve Gansen

Fort Atkinson, Wis.

ISU alumnus, 1993