Columnist reveals self as anti-war

The reactionary and defensive position taken by Robert Steinback in an Aug. 19 guest column ("Dare to ask blasphemous political questions") turned out to be more about an anti-war (Iraq) position than about politics - contrary to what he would have readers think.

Counterproductive, anti-war positions can be easily identified as negative positions that become active only when hostilities are active. These may actually cost American lives since they aid the enemy, and may be much closer to treason than to blasphemy. Steinback does not seem to be dumb, so he should realize this.

In some cases it is difficult to determine if anti-war activists are really trying to reduce hostilities or to grab headlines. Notoriety and vanity are strong driving forces. However, it is quite irrational to attempt to prevent hostilities after they have become active. Prevention can only come beforehand, and it is perhaps the only means for peace.

Steinback says nothing to indicate that he favors peace. If conditions were peaceful, he would have nothing to write about, and that would be hard on his pocketbook. Maybe that's why it has been said that "Blessed are the peacemakers" - smart choice of words since the "peace" marchers and "peace" writers and talkers have left historians little with which to work.

Joseph B. Harris, Augusta