Editor's intensely personal stake in Iraq war resonates with readers: response as poignant as column.

There's no doubt that writing about personal experiences can have great impact on readers. And, there's little doubt that the more deeply personal it is, the better.

Over the years I've written about an operation my son had at seven months old and about having to drive the worst commute stretch in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've written about attending a reunion of classmates from my Catholic grammar school only to find that none of us were practicing Catholics any more. And I wrote about my mother's ignoring signs of colon cancer until it was too late.

But nothing was harder to write than a column in March 2007 about saying good-bye at the airport to my then-eighteen-year-old son who was headed off to fight the war in Iraq--a war my wife and I oppose. He was part of the "surge" and had really felt called to be a soldier. He wanted to protect America from terrorists, a noble cause. But he had to go where ordered. We supported his decision, but not the president's.

It was a hard column to write because the subject of the war can be such a hot-button issue. I didn't want it to be preachy. I didn't want to argue that everyone should think like me. That would have led to a column that I'd already read a zillion times. So, instead, I tried to just lay out there: We're parents with an intensely personal stake in the war, and this is our dilemma.

Before writing the column I asked my editorial board team what they thought about my idea. Naturally, they knew about the struggle my wife and I had with our son's enlistment and then our pride in his basic training accomplishments as he became an army cavalry scout. In unison, they said: Write. I also got support from the NCEW list-serve. Just about all the journalists said that because the paper has taken a repeated stand on the war--supporting troop withdrawal--my personal connection should be disclosed.

The funny thing is that after the column appeared, not a single reader mentioned transparency. Instead, I had touched a deep nerve about the anxiety people feel about being opposed to the war, while wanting to support the troops. That first column, which was picked up by many NCEW-member newspapers across the country, generated more than five hundred emails. A follow-tip column I wrote in December, after my son's eighteen-day leave, generated another two hundred emails. All of the responses were incredibly personal, many filled with outrage and all with admiration for the soldiers.

Most of the emails supported my position and were very thoughtful. Many writers said the column brought them to tears. Many vowed that Iraq War veterans would not be treated like Vietnam War-era soldiers. I heard from rooms, dads, siblings, spouses, and grandparents. But there were probably ten percent that were vitriolic to the point of being hateful. Many accused my wife and me of trying to get our son killed because opposing the war was aiding the enemy.

Obviously, the response to the columns was a bit overwhelming, but also gratifying. After both columns I printed a sampling of the responses to give local readers a chance to see what others across the country were thinking about the issue: Can you support the troops, but not the war? Many, many readers were as moved by the responses as they were by the column.

I wasn't able to share my first column with my son before publication because it took about a month for him to be in a place to receive mail. But when he read it later he said he thought it was fine.

"Democracy is all about having the right to disagree with the government," he said. "That's what soldiers want to protect."

Stephen E. Wright is editorial page editor and vice president of the San Jose Mercury News. He did not name his son in this article or the columns to try to ensure that his comments would not impact his son. Email: SWright@ mercurynews.com