Nevertheless, when the Harvard Republican Club sponsored its "Rally for the Troops," their publicity posters had the words "and Bush!" hastily scribbled on. The implication that one had to support Bush to support the troops was clear.

During the rally, Joel D. Hornstein '91 captured the prevailing sentiment of the pro-war movement: "The time for debate has ended." Thisis the most dangerous sentiment of all.

Conservatives have long argued that America cannot afford the luxury of debate and disunity when it comes to conflict with totalitarian powers. This claim should not be taken lightly. Adolph Hitler once observed that "the great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it." In an all-our war against a totalitarian power, it is not unreasonable to expect that we might have to dispense in order to preserve them for the long term.

The Gulf War, however, is not one of those situations. In a war of so little consequence that we haven't even put our economy on a war footing, there is no absolutely no reason to put our democracy in hock Conservative opposition to debate and dissent is not motivated by military necessity, but by the most venal sort of political opportunism. The insinuation that opponents of war somehow love their country less is one of the basest--and one of the most effective--smears in all of politics.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war," noted one particularly astute student of mass politics. "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is to tell them: they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."

Thus spoke Hermann Goering.