|
|
 |
|
during a presidential election where trouble was expected |
may not be such a bad idea
By ELIAS CASTILLO
of TheColumnists.com
IN THE 1940s, when we still
lived along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Imperial Valley, my
stepgrandfather and grandmother hustled my brother and me into
the family car one summer afternoon and we hurried away from
the newspaper my stepgrandfather owned in Mexicali.
When I asked where we were going, my grandmother told me in a
matter-of-fact tone, "There's a strike at the soap factory.
We're going to take a look at it."
Within a few minutes, we arrived and saw an astonishing sight.
The small factory sat along a gully with a bridge leading to
the complex. Stationed at one end of the bridge, under the shade
of tall eucalyptus trees, was a menacing water-cooled machine
gun on a tripod manned by a crew of three Mexican soldiers. One
of them sat behind the weapon, his hands on the twin-handles
and his eyes looking over the barrel. Behind the large gun were
dozens of other soldiers in combat gear, their rifles at waist
level and pointed at a group of very worried unarmed strikers
who were looking straight at the barrels of the rifles and the
machine gun.
It was a sight that would be forever ingrained in my mind. Here
were heavily armed soldiers pointing weapons at unarmed civilians.
Even at my young age--I was about eight or nine years old--I
realized this was something that was just not done. I also realized
why my stepgrandfather and mother had rushed to the site: They
needed to get a closeup look at what could have been a potential
massacre of workers. Later they would publish a story on the
strike, severely criticizing the local Mexican Army commander
for his stupidity in using a needless display of overbearing
force against a small group of strikers.
I remember that when we arrived, we were told to stay near the
car while my stepgrandfather and grandmother ventured to get
a closer look once we had parked about 100 feet from the bridge.
There was no clowning around between my brother and I. We simply
stood there gazing at the scene, realizing that we were in the
midst of something that was not Hollywood make-believe.
Decades later, on another trip to Mexico, my wife, Cathy, and
I, visited Mexico City where heavily armed soldiers, in full
combat gear, were patrolling the streets during a presidential
Election Day. Was the use of such deadly weapons really necessary
in Mexico? In that year the ruling party, the Partido Institucional
Revolucionario (PRI) was still in power. It held onto its authority
through corruption, intimidation and assassination. And, it used
the army to intimidate the population. "Threaten our authority
and we'll kill you!" That was the message it conveyed. Yet,
despite the displays of armed might, Mexico's citizenry eventually
overthrew the PRI in last year's presidential elections.
On a later trip to Europe, Cathy and I saw policemen and soldiers
patrolling airports, banks, and government complexes in Rome,
London, Belfast, Madrid and Paris. They carried Uzi machine guns,
rifles, sidearms, and all wore bulletproof vests. They were there
not to intimidate the populace of those countries but to protect
them from terrorists and their bombs and weapons. Their cause
was far different than what we had seen in Mexico.
Before we saw those European guards, we had friends who would
describe, in horror, the weapons carried by those guardian soldiers
and policemen: "Oh, they carried machine guns and it was
just terrible to see." Some went on to say they "just
didn't feel right; it was frightening to see all those guns."
They failed to realize those men and women were there to guard
them from an attack.
Now, because of the Sept. 11 attack and terrible loss of lives
inflicted on us by
Islamic fanatics, the sight of heavily armed guards patrolling
our vital centers has come to the United States.
In Europe, civilians accept those soldiers and policemen. They
breathe easier, knowing the weapons their guards carry can spray
a hail of bullets and cut down any terrorist in an instant, if
given enough advance warning. The major objective of those guards
is to stop any suicide bomber or armed attackers that threaten
the citizenry, but if they are to succeed in that mission they
need the help of an alert populace that does not cringe at the
sight of weapons.
What has been commonplace in Europe and many other parts of the
world is now part of our lives. Our nation has declared war against
terrorism, and a bevy of other countries has joined us in that
mission. We can expect a long and protracted conflict against
suicidal fanatics. They apparently can only be stopped from threatening
all of us if they are neutralized before they plan another attack,
before they kill thousands more, and before they send us reeling
into states of such anxiety that we will be constantly looking
over our shoulders not knowing where or when another attack will
occur.
In Mexicali, on that bridge, scores of years ago, I watched in
awe at the threat posed by those soldiers. I also realized those
soldiers were on the wrong side and doing the wrong thing for
the wrong reason.
The heavily armed soldiers we see dressed in combat gear who
now patrol our airports deserve our gratitude. Their weapons,
designed to destroy or incapacitate our enemies as quickly and
efficiently as possible, are on the right side, doing the right
thing and all for the right reasons.
Column and photo ©
2001 by Elias Castillo.
ELIAS CASTILLO is a much-honored,
award-winning journalist who has reported for the Associated
Press, the San Jose Mercury News and numerous publications. He
has extensive experience covering Mexico and currently writes
op-ed columns for the San Francisco Chronicle. He is the author
of the "Border Boy" series for this website.
Want
to comment on this column or contact Elias Castillo? You can
do it by clicking here and addressing an email to Castillo: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |