Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 1, 1991)
The war hill Victory shouldn’t eclipse domestic needs In 1975, a 25-year-old National Security Council document called NSC-68 was accidentally released and published. The document described a program developed by Harry Truman in 1950 to expand the U.S. military. At the time, the country was in a post-World War II economic slide. The idea was to exploit war, or at least the fear of war, to | bolster America’s export and production of military hardware. Truman wanted the military-based economy of World War II to continue. Inc American public initially didn t go tor the idea, t ncn Americans were told by the Truman administration about a * place called Korea. They also were told about something called the Domino Theory. Then they were told about the Cold War, and by 1990, 26 percent of the U.S. budget was still in some way related to national security. By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union and its international 1 proletarian revolution was pretty much a memory. A cease-fire ft in The Cold War was declared, and people at home started calling for a “peace dividend” and a reconstruction of Amer ica's crumbling infrastructure. In 1990, the United States fell into recession. On July 25, 1990, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April I Glaspic, told the president of Iraq — who was threatening an I invasion of a small neighboring country — that the U.S. had “no opinion” on Iraqi border disputes. I Then Americans were told about a place called Kuwait. They also were told about things called naked aggression and the New World Order. Now, in 1991, the U.S. military once again is a source of pride. High-tech and the troops won big. And the American public is going to be a lot more willing to financially support a winner, even during times of economic hardship at home. 1i wemy-MX pciieiu ui me icuciui uuugci goc?> iu me mili tary. The people who profit from that 26 percent surely will use the gulf war as justification for that spending. Multibillion doilar defense contracts, they can say, save American lives and crush ruthless, cxpansionislic dictators. Since the designing of NSC-68, this country’s military com plex has siphoned needed money and manpower from domestic programs and non-military industries. The Persian Gulf war may be another end run from a peacetime economy. But it’s not necessary to believe that the Soviets and Saddam were pawns to divert public attention from domestic problems | and to justify our huge military complex. It is only necessary 4 that Americans quickly turn their attention back to problems at home. Just like before the war, homelessness, drugs and every other domestic issue still exist, as does the inability of U.S. industry to compete on foreign markets. Victory in Kuwait can’t change these facts, it can only hide them. Rodeos, wars not equivalent ^an you mix issues as well as hran Thompson (DN, Feb. 20)? Compar ing Lincoln’s rodeo to the war in the Persian Gulf is like comparing Coca Cola to 10w40. The only thing that the rodeo animals have in common with the humans fighting the war is the fact that they are mammals. The animals think differently, act differ ently and cannot organize an armed military group. Imagine if they could. Would it be something like Harry Holstein’s armed herd against the abominable Horses!! The history of the planet would be tremendously different if animals were equal to humans. The basic fact is they are not, and they must be treated with different rules of conduct and behav ior than humans. Granted, animalsare sentient; they can think. However, their level of intelligence is not to the point where they can reason or plan beyond a few minutes in advance. They are unable to launch an organized military ac tion (some dog species approach military action with their pack hunt ing, but this is mainly for more effec tive hunting, not the gaining of terri tory). Most of their time is spent search ing for food. Some Of their behavior is learned; some behavior is instinctive. This varies from species to species with the greatest intellect being in humans. You may say that humans with their great intellect should look out for the welfare of the animals of the earth. You are absolutely correct. We should and are, in most cases, respon sible for these lesser creatures. But they are still lesser creatures. No ani mal approaches humans in ihe ability to reason and control their environ ment. To equate any animal with any human is an error of judgment. Who are the people that support radical acts for the “freedom” of ani mals? Don’t they realize that they are better off under the care of humans than in the wild? Nature is a cold and cruel master. Animal populations arc maintained depending upon the amoum of food that is available. Too much food one year means that more indi viduals can be bom and may survive This increased number of individuals is more vulnerable to the ravages o! disease because of the increased pos sibility of less food for the largei number of individuals the next year What happens to this large herd? The5 starve to death; disease attacks the individuals weakened by lack of foot and they die. Sometimes the disease brought in by this herd of animal; infects other species of animals in iht immediate area and they die. Animals conlrollcd by humans an watched rcguiarly, fed regularly ant treated when ill, and populations ar< held at static levels to prevent majo number fluctuations and the associ alcd die-offs. In closing, let me suggest to ani mal right supporters to clean you own house first. Help the jobless homeless person that lives in a box ii an alley somewhere. Help your spe cies to better itself, then move on it other species. Chris Rudnicl graduate sluden gcologj Horn, Hot! DO S (They tm like ~h\ the DErtoenArte. j I ISoHtH of Scops tp j fRobJTRwJHEKSX \HE, Sit?- T eook? y-J Irr-t cf —^ c\ /JsXT Wfc DAVID DALTON Cease-fire prompts new conflicts Now that the fighting is over, the war in the Persian Gulf should really get interesting. Retaking Kuwait was just the first act, and it ended with a whopper of a cliffhangcr: How will the allies pull out of the region without causing more problems than they came to solve? It won’t be easy, because “pulling out” doesn’t mean we tip our hats and bid the Arab world adieu. When we pull out, you can be sure there’ll be traces of the New World Order left behind. This new order thing has been vague from the beginning, as are the presi dent’s long-term goals in Iraq. But a few objectives seem likely. After the mopping up is finished, forces certainly will remain in the area until Iraq complies with Bush’s three mandates and whatever else is required to effect an acceptable nor mality. This probably means depos ing Saddam Hussein. But with Kuwait effectively liber ated and Iraq effectively incapaci tated, allied troops will be an increas ingly uncomfortable presence in the Middle East. And the level of tension may be worsened by the fact that the problem in need of solution is far more com plex than it is commonly given credit for. It boils down to an effort to repel a power grab by Saddam in which oil and the national sovereignly of Ku wait only play a part. The reason is President Bush’s decision that possession of Kuwait and its oil amounted to too much power for Saddam. What the United Stales wants is a balance of power in the Middle East suitable to U.S. interests. If Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait, it would have tipped the scale too far in his favor. If Saddam were allowed to expand his sphere of influence both in terms of geography and natural re sources, it would have effectively reduced the influence of U.S. allies in the area. Enough so, it seems, to warrant drastic measures in the eyes of our leaders. Henry Kissinger, for one, made this comment about a month ago: “We need to be able to count on a balance of power, both on a global Bush has stated his goal of achieving a lasting peace in the region. But if his vision of the future is based on main taining existing spheres of power. the resulting in equities will proba bly iust spell more ol the same. and regional scale ... This is why in the final analysis all the so-called diplomatic options would have ag gravated the issue.” The principle is the same as that of containment, so emphasized in the Cold War years. In various Third World countries the United States proved, by installing dictatorships, that spreading democracy was not as important as stopping the spread of communism. Not a question of mo rality as much as a question of power. Actually, morality is often sacri ficed when power is at stake. Viable options arc rejected in order to main tain alliances. During the gulf war, linkage of a settlement to the Palestinian issue was taboo in the While House. And why? It would have been like grant ing concessions to Iraq, or like strik ing deals with terrorists. And more importantly, it would offend Israel. Israel hasn’t always been the best friend money can buy, but in the Middle East it is about our only friend. And preserving this bond takes precedence over other matters. Then there’s Kuwait. George Will wrote in a column that when we rees tablish the Kuwaiti government, wc should give it an upgrade as well—to a democracy. Bush, on the other hand, seems committed to reinserting the old re gime down to the last iota. Regardless of how well informed you may believe Will’s commentary to be, it appears certain that such hopes will not be realized. In fact, Iraq has a better chance of going democratic than Kuwait does. We already have a foothold in Ku wait without messing with its govern ment. If Bush insists that every letter of his conditions be met, and especially if he is determined to oust Hussein, the United States may again have to resort to a ground assault to achieve its objectives. Given the past record of both sides, it doesn’t seem unlikely that a U.S. victory can be achieved, though with the troop concentration in Baghdad and the presumed loyalty of those forces, the cost in lives will be sigmli cantly higher. But it is the political consequences that may be the most daunting. Al ready there is wavering of support lor the allied attacks from government officials in France and the Soviet Union. Bush may not be equal to rallying world opinion if the world secs him as a floggcr of a dead horse. The problem is enormous. Bush has stated his goal of achieving a lasting peace in the region. But if his vision of the future is based on main taining existing spheres of power, the resulting inequities will probably .just spell more of the same. Injustices must be pul right, but not only those of our enemies. If wc divide the world into nations toward whom wc can extend compromise and those wc can’t, then wc have made a world that is assured ol con flict. Dalton Is a junior secondary education major and a Dally Nebraskan columnist ! -—EDITORIAL POLICY ) Initialed editorials represent of ficial policy of the spring 1991 : Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by i the editorial board. The Daily Nebraskan’s pub lishers are the NU Board of Re gents, who established the Univer sity of Nebraska-Lincoln Publica tions Board to supervise daily pro duction of the paper. According to the regents’ policy, responsibility Jjg for the editorial content lies solely in the hands of the newspaper’s student editors. J