Chicago Tribune reporter Rex W. Huppke published a story concerning Cindy Sheehan's departure as the nominal anti-war protest figurehead, leading off with a rather inflammatory and misleading headline: Today's protester, lacking guts, gets no glory. As too many people only read the headline, Huppke was done a disservice by his editors, who were seeking to express glee over the emotional collapse of Sheehan's efforts through implying that today's anti-war protester is a sissy. I will point out shortly where they are very wrong.

Huppke's article laid out some very cogent observations about why it is that opposition to the Oil War grows while participation in street protests diminishes: no draft, a cynical attitude toward politics, and a lack of belief that the individual can affect the world. They are also focused on more personal goals, which have admittedly become much more difficult to attain since the days of the Port Huron Statement.

Jeremi Suri, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, puts it this way: "Students have become very risk-averse. They care, but they're afraid that if they go out and get involved in something they might not get into law school or get the job they want."

Considering this assertion, one has to marvel at the graduating West Point cadet who refused to shake hands with Dick Cheney. Does he not know that Unka Dickhead has to power to assign him to someplace very hostile like Baghram or Baghdad until he can serve his commitment of four years and get out?

But I digress.

Huppke points out that modern technology helps to make this concern realistic, as images generated with cell phone cameras and put up on YouTube or MySpace sites can and will be used against them. In addition, Huppke feels that today's protester gets bored with the issue and moves on to more stimulating fare before anything tangible can be achieved. "It's just a lot of hot air," he sneers.

Back in the Vietnam protest days, many of these same arguments could have been made against those who protested. There was a concern about one's future prospects, which led many more to submit to the draft when their notice came than those who refused, willing instead to face prison terms. Disdainful commentary, such as Huppke's current dismissal, was the norm.

But there occurred and event so powerful that it changed the attitude dispensed when covering war protest. It took the veterans who survived and came home to join the protests to make the nation sit up and take notice.

So it is today.

Back on March 20, 2007, the Washington Post published a report by David Montgomery covering 13 Iraq war veterans in full desert camo staging an anti-war protest - entitled Operation First Casualty - by going on "patrol" from Union Station to Arlington National Cemetery. They were attempting to raise awareness in American citizens of what the Oil War really means through the use of '60s-style street theater. As one of the 13 said, "When I got home, the hardest thing for me was realizing the war does not exist here."

The point wasn't getting through to everyone, including one observer who complained, "I don't know what they're doing, but they're in everybody's way."

As Newton's Third Law of Motion states, For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of these Oil War veterans caused a reaction from the military, which is seeking to administer a reduction in discharge status to three Marines who participated in the above protest.

But not all of the military-related citizenry of this nation have forgotten why throughout out history men went to war. They remember what it was that was to be protected by going to war - our rights. Gary Kurpius, the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and an Army vet who fought in Vietnam, rises to the defense of "Marines went to war, did their duty, and were honorably discharged from the active roles." Kurpius doesn't agree with the message of the protest, but he feels very strongly in their right to say it.

The Marine Corps isn't about to start a war with veterans groups now that all the furor over the Walter Reed scandal has fallen below the attention threshold to the point where few noticed that pictures of wounded soldiers have now been administratively banned along with shots of flag-draped caskets returning from the front. Rather than disturb that fragile peace, they retreated to a position behind the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), claiming that one of these Marines expressed himself in an inappropriate manner to a Marine officer, who contacted him with the advisory that wearing all or part of a military uniform in such a protest violated Pentagon regulations.

It's also against Pentagon regulations to participate in religious proselytizing while in uniform, but as Christians are infiltrating the military as never before, I guess it's all in who enforces the rules, isn't it? Only those who protest while in uniform are subject to the application of this regulation.

Maybe it's the officer corps of this nation which is the group of sissies. The Marine invited the officer to perform a personal and impossible sex act, which was deemed "disrespectful to a commissioned officer" (This charge isn't being applied to the other Marines). As our embattled Marine puts it, "Marines don't pull punches." That esprit de corps makes a Marine doesn't allow for pulling punches. They are trained to hit hard, and if led by good officers, can achieve great things as their history attests.

The nation and the world all think the Bush administration is wrong for conducting this Oil War. Thus, there is little sympathy for the officers who are making the Oil War possible. Complaining about a few discharged enlisted veterans doesn't make them sound like the hardened warriors the see themselves as being. If they can't stand the heat of the battle, they shouldn't be leading it for those who will turn their backs on them the moment they are no longer useful.

At that point, they will be wishing that someone had put a stop to the madness before they were affected by it. They will be wishing that someone's protest was effective in doing so - and regretting their actions in preventing that outcome. They just might wish they had acted as that West Point Cadet had.