U.S. intervention in Gulf crisis unnecessary
President Reagan is reconsidering.
Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Sheik Ahmed Zaki
Yamani, cautioned the West not to overreact to the
most recent crisis in the 44-month old Iran-Iraq
war. This time Arab nations have blamed Iran for
attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Iran says it
will not stop unless Iraq stops its attacks on ships in
Iranian ports.
After alleged U.S. offers of help to Saudi Arabia,
the Reagan administration's backtracking, reported
Wednesday, is a wise move. The United States does
not need to get involved in the current crisis, either
directly or indirectly.
In the past week, Reagan directly offered U.S.
assistance to Saudi Arabia through a letter to that
country's King Fahd. As he stressed in the letter and
at his press conference Tuesday night, U.S. help
would not come until the Arab nations requested it.
But, Reagan thinks that "now is the time to begin
logistic planning" of how the Americans could help if
asked, according to an Associated Press article pub
lished in Tuesday's Lincoln Journal.
The United States probably would provide air
cover and naval backup, the article reported.
Another AP article said a squadron of 24 U.S. Air
Force F-15 fighters could be in Saudi Arabia within
two days of a request.
What does that mean? It sounds like, even though
no one has asked for U.S.help, the Reagan adminis
tration wants to proceed as if someone had.
Best to be prepared, one might say.
But prepared for what? According to Yamani in
Tuesday's Lincoln Star, U.S. oVerreaction could
cause a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union.
"No one will Invite the U.S. without thin king about
the danger of the Soviet Union," he said.
Thank heaven for small miracles.
United Nations Secretary-General Perez de Cuel
lar agreed: He called the conflict "extremely danger
ous and cautioned against its involving the United
States and the Soviet Union.
Any U.S. move, direct or indirect, would be an
overreaction. According to an AP article earlier this
week, less than 1 percent of U.S. oil comes from the
Persian Gulf region. At his press conference Tues
day, Reagan estimated slightly more, at only 3
percent.
Yet, although the figures are low, Reagan said the
"Western World" would not let oil shipments from
the Persian Gulf stop.
In February, according to Wednesday's Star, Rea
gan had worded this more strongly. Then, Reagan
felt there was "no way that we could allow that
channel to be closed "
Before he decided Wednesday to reconsider his
Persian Gulf policies, all the options Reagan sug
gested vere fairly direct. If requested, the adminis
tration would send U.S. planes or U.S. ships.
However, if Reagan follows the path he has taken
often, the aid may be more indirect. In El Salvador,
Reagan favors sending U.S. dollars rather than U.S.
forces. In Lebanon, Reagan involved U.S. forces, but
not officially. They were only part of a United
Nation's peacekeeping force.
In the Persian Gulf, the president could be think
ing of aiding the new Saudi $1 billion air defense
improvements. United Press International reported
Wednesday that the new system will use electronic
equipment made In Saudi Arabia but paid for partly
by foreign countries. The source of the funds was
not identified.
Considering the administration's reluctance to
tell Congress or the public about its indirect aid to
other countries like the mining of Nicaraguan
harbors it wouldn't be surprising if the funds
were U.S. funds.
In the same article, the Islamic Republic News
Agency of Iran said Reagan had held off this long in
the Gulf crisis because "his bitter experiment" in
Lebanon may have taught him that a United States
Moslem clash will "bring the Americans nothing but
defeat."
Maybe it wouldn't bring defeat, but for 1 percent
to 3 percent of this country's oil, would intervention
be worth the blood or the money? While he is recon
sidering his Gulf policy, Reagan should consider let
ting the Arab nations handle their own problems.
Central America Vietnam of the 1980s?
Shortly after the last Americans left
Vietnam, a friend of mine got into an
argument with a noted hawk who
contended that if the United States
had only persevered it could have won
Richard Cohen
the war. My friend did not argue with
that. America could have won, he agreed
but at what cost to the country? The
noted hawk got his point. Some wars,
he conceded, you win abroad and lose
at home.
We are fast approaching that point
when it comes to Central America. The
area is not yet another Vietnam, neither
in scope nor in the extent of American
participation, but already we see one
pattern being repeated. It's harder
and harder to believe what our own
government is saying.
That was the hallmark of the Vietnam
era. Sure, the United States was in
volved in an unpopular and unwise
war and there would have been dissent
in any case. But what gave the dissent
its impetus and sometimes its nasty
edge of violence was the belief that our
own government was lying to us
conducting secret bombings, falsifying
figures, deceiving Congress.
All of that is present now in Central
America. President Reagan's speeches
on the subject are full of Lyndon John
son like hyperbole and "facts" of his
own concotion Nicaragua's official
anti-Semitism, for instance. We con
tinue to conduct a covert war against
the Sandinistas which was launched
without announcement or debate; Its
existence was revealed in the press
not in a press release and it still goes
officially unacknowledged by the ad
ministration itself much like the so
called secret bombing of Cambodia.
Similarly, American involvement in
the mining of Nicaraguan harbors a
virtual act of war also was done
secretly. It was done so secretly, in
fact, that some key members of the
Senate Intelligence Committee
notably Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
and Barry Goldwater complained
that they were just plain deceived.
It turns out now that the United
States pumped some $1.4 million into
the El Salvador elections, mostly to
secure the election of Jose Napoleon
Duarte. The reason we know this is
that Sen. Jesse Helms shot his mouth
off. Whatever you may think of his
alleged security breach and some
senators think it's, awful it too con
tains the unstated bleat of deception.
Helms is all but saying, "But I thought
we were neutral" a complaint echoed
by some Salvadoran politicians.
And now the press is reporting that
the administration seems to have found
ways of circumventing congressional
restrictions on military aid to Central
America. The government allegedly has
shuffled budgets, taken Pentagon
money and given it to the CIA. The
WHO WAS THE CXJVW rYufflp
LAST CASUALTY ' (X Vtal CH1Lra-
yiM. fJ ju
I 4 i.2
Defense Department, for instance, has
allegedly provided the CIA with guns,
ships and planes in effect subsidizing
and allowing it to skirt congressional
restrictions on its activities. And there
have been even more recent reports
that the CIA has prevailed upon the
Israelis to function as American sur
rogates and help the Contras.
We have seen this sort of thing
before. The operating mentality is
arrogance the conviction that the
situation is so critical, so stark, that it
justifies either unethical or extra-legal
actions. In the end, Americans and
their elected representatives get treat
ed like they, too, are the enemy. In
formation is witheld. Congress is cir
cumvented and rhetoric is inflated to
justify what has already been done.
'Already, much of what the admini
stration says about Central America
has to be taken with a grain of salt. A
kind of Vietnam-era cynicism hovers
over this town a suspicion that the
announced agenda is not the real
agenda and that despite assurances to
the contrary, the worst is yet to come.
Central America is not yet Vietnam.
American troops are not really en
gaged in the fighting and few of them
are there anyway. But it resembles
Vietnam in the administration's con
viction that it has a monopoly on the
truth and it must pursue a certain
policy regardless of popular opinion.
This was the ultimate mistake of Viet
nam. In Central America, the winner has
yet to be determined. But the loser is
becoming more and more obvious. It's
the administration's credibility.
1234, Washington Pes! Wrltr Group
MamlpiilMed statistics oppress American poor
When Sam Pierce, the U.S. Director of Housing
and Urban Development, says there are between
250,000 and a million poor people in the entire Uni
ted States, he is insulting my intelligence.
When Pierce and his research staff talk of random
sampling, data sets and statistics as priorities and
preconditions for facing the real poverty crisis here
in the United States, they show a blatant disrespect
for the common folk.
Statistics have always been manipulated to sup
port the power structure's positions and programs.
From the beginning, we find a plethora of "studies"
that pave an anti-human path straight through
society. Often common people are left too weak to
do anything but wonder.
In this study, the numbers let the Reagan admin
istration downplay the plight of those that very
administration has made poor. As Reagan took
office, unemployment was skyrocketing, inflation
Page 4
fluctuating and the economy falling apart. What
better way to "save the day" than to cut back spend
ing on social programs?
. To justify program cuts, along comes Pierce and
his pseudo-scientists with random digit dialing sur
veys and "guesstimates" bout the number of poor.
Matthew
Stelly
Downgrading that number provides a rationale for
cutbacks in programs that normally would help the
poor. If this saves money, there is more to spend on
those things that the Reagan administration deems
most important bombs, bullets and beast-like
men.
Daily Nebraskan
The role of the social scientist is not to assist in the
oppression of society. When those gifted with tal
ents in research use those talents to buttress a lie,
then they aid and abet the oppressors in the crimes
against humanity. The political nature of the Pierce
document then comes to surface.
Not only are the numbers and the research
methods questionable, but so is the timing of the
document. During his entire tenure as president,
Reagan has tried to downplay the plight of the U.S.
poor. He has told us how great America is, how well
off women and minorities are and, along with Ed
Meese, has implied that those who fill the missions,
tne shelters for the poor and the food lines are not
there because they have to be. Nope. They are there
sponging and using these programs.
Continued cn Pas 5
Friday, May 25, 1984
