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
