To the Editor:
As a Manhattan resident who has witnessed a broad range of reactions to the Sept. 11 attacks, I respectfully disagree with Professor Sergei Kan ("Proud of Patriotism," 10/2/01) on several points.
I too am impatient with simplistic reactions to this complex national crisis. Dishing out sound bytes is not an adequate alternative to the sophisticated diplomatic, economic, and yes, military strategizing, that has taken place over the last three weeks. Our leaders face a decision considerably more complicated than a simple war/peace dichotomy, and some "pro-peace" rhetoric does appear to ignore that.
But like the "peaceniks" he criticizes, Professor Kan also reduces the complexity of this situation. He suggests that peace demonstrations can take place in Hanover only because the demonstrators lack the sensitivity they would gain from being in New York and "look[ing] into the eyes of those whose loved ones perished only three weeks ago."
It is inaccurate to divide the world among those who have suffered an immediate loss and those who favor a peaceful response.
The New York Times has published letters to the editor from writers who have lost loved ones in the attacks, but who do not wish to see other families condemned to their suffering as a result of American military strikes.
Peace rallies here in Manhattan have been attended by many who are grieving for colleagues, friends, and family members.
Furthermore, Professor Kan's letter contains an objectionable implication: that one cannot be a patriot unless one supports military action.
Thoughtful people can love and support their country while debating its alternatives and questioning its actions. True patriotism must never exclude this freedom of thought and political dissent.
