Page 2/The Battalion/Tuesday, October 5, 1987
Opinion
U.S. should follow Swiss military strategy
4
Switzerland has
pursued a policy
of neutrality for
more than 450
years. The Swiss
have been free
since 1291 and at
peace since 1815.
Though they are
neutral, they are
not weak.
Believing that
neutrality alone is
not enough to preserve their peace and
security, they practice a policy of
deterrence through strength. This
policy has maintained their peace and
liberty through many difficult times,
including both world wars.
Every Swiss male must serve in the
military. Only those who are physically
incapable are exempt, and they must
pay a special tax. Consciencious
objectors are imprisoned as well as
taxed.
The army is divided into three age
groups: the elite, age 20 to 32; the
landwehr, age 33 to 42; and the
landsturm, age 43 to 50. At age 20,
every man undergoes 17 weeks of basic
training.'Afterwards, while in the elite,
he serves eight refresher courses of
three weeks each; in the landwehr,
three courses of two weeks; in the
landsturm, one course of two weeks. An
officer undergoes further training and
must serve one day of every ten until he
reaches age 55. All men, when not
serving with their units, keep their
weapons and equipment at home in
readiness.
This organization enables the Swiss to
mobilize 650,000 trained men — ten
percent of the population — in less than
48 hours. They are supported by an
extensive system of prepared defenses.
While this citizen army provides an
effective defense and deterrence to
aggression, it does not drain the
economy as do standing armies: With
the exception of a handful of full-time
officers, soldiers are employed when
not serving. Over the course of his life,
the average citizen spends only one year
in active service and so fulfills his duty
to his country.
The Swiss policy of peace through
strength has worked, partly because of
their preparedness and resolve, and
partly because of their refusal to cast
aside their neutrality to take sides in
international conflicts.
This is in marked contrast to the
United States. Our policy encompasses a
large, expensive standing Army which,
in conjunction with our Navy and Air
Force, is expected to protect not only
the United States but also far-flung
regions of the world. Our commitment
to support democracy around the world
causes us to involve ourselves in many
situations that threaten to embroil us in
war, while our interference in the
internal affairs of other countries earns
us their hatred and distrust.
The expense of this threatens to
bankrupt us. There is no good reason
why we cannot adequately provide for
our national security without having to
spend the 6 percent of our GNP we
spent on defense in 1985. In that year,
25 percent of our defense budget went
for personnel costs alone. If we were to
adopt a system similar to that of the
Swiss, we could save a great deal of
money by eliminating many salaries and
recruitment costs. Our defense would
be enhanced, for who would dare to
attack us knowing that every able
American man from age 20 to 50 was
trained and ready to bear arms in
defense of his country? How could the
Soviet Union or any other country
believe such defensive preparations to
be a threat to its security?
We cannot afford to defend the rest
of the world. And our Constitution,
established to provide for the common
defense of the United States, does not
authorize it. In his farewell address as
president, George Washington stated
the Constitutional principle upon which
our foreign policy should rest: “The
great rule of conduct for us, in regard to
foreign nations is, in extending our
commercial relations, to have with them
as little political connection as possible.”
He felt that our best policy would be to
pursue free commercial intercourse
with all nations while avoiding
entangling our destiny in theirs.
Currently, our fate is tied up with the
fate of Europe as well as with other
parts of the world. This is not essential
to our security. Europe is capable of
defending itself, if it is willing. It is not
right for our leaders to pledge our
blood and money to defend those who
are not willing to defend themselves.
Neither is the Middle East so essential
to us as to risk war over it. The Arabs,
completely dependent upon oil sales to
keep their economies going, cannot
afford to lose oil revenues for long.
Furthermore, we have plenty of oil in
this hemisphere to supply our most
pressing needs in a crisis.
We must reassess our defense polio
We cannot continue to be the world's
moral guardian or the defender of
democracy. Of course, wecannotjust
drop our commitments to our allies.
They must be prepared over time to
stand on their own, overcoming their
dependency on us.
Communism presents a real threat
the freedom of the West. Ultimately,
however, our struggle with communist
is a battle of ideas, not guns. While
maintaining military preparedness,w
must concentrate our efforts againstit
in the realm of ideas. Demonstratingtii
superiority of our ideas to theirs willji
more to halt communism’s advancein
the long run than exporting men and
weapons.
In our world, it is probably not
possible for us to follow Switzerland's
example completely. We still have
strategic weapons and a Navythatnet:
full-time personnel. There maybe
occasions when defending another
country may be in order. Yetwestillc
profit from Swiss success with their
citizen army and sensible foreign polio
and should endeavor to do so.
Brian Frederick is a senior histoijm
Russian major and a columnist for^
Battalion.
Brian
Frederick
Mail Call
Wanted: Inoffensive stories
EDITOR:
I have been personally offended by the stories told at midnight yell
practice lately. These sexually oriented stories have their roots in A&M’s all
male past. These stories should remain in the past. The objective of the
stories is to draw some parallel between A&M and their wrath against the
opposing team. I am sure there are stories that satisfy that objective without
compromising good taste.
David Provines ’87
accompanied by 60 signatures
Food for thought
EDITOR:
I could not believe the article I read in the Sept. 24 issue of At Ease, “Do
you like the food on campus?” What?! No variety? Not worth the money? Not
brought to my dorm room when I’m hungry? Give me a break.
Texas A&M at College Station has numerous dining halls and snack bars
that serve food, for which College Station Aggies should thank their lucky
stars. Part of the A&M system, Texas A&M at Galveston, does not fare so
well. Most don’t know of our existence on Pelican Island because we only
have 1,000 Sea Aggies. Does that mean we don’t deserve to eat like humans?
If you live on campus, as about 700 of us do, you must purchase the
board plan for $735 a semester. This allows you three meals a day, seven days
a week. “That’s a great plan!” you might say. Well, if you like eating soggy
cereal with sour milk and a glass of warm juice before an 8 a.m. chemistry
class, then you might love it here.
Lunch and dinner have one main entree. You don’t like it, you don’t eat.
The salad bar reminds one of a biology experiment. Once again, if you get
off to nausea, then we’re the school for you. So if you can’t eat with your little
clique, my heart bleeds for you.
Sharin Cundiff ’91
Texas A&M at Galveston
New semester, same old Baft
EDITOR:
Regarding Sue Krenek’s Sept. 30 column: It is nice to see that the good ’ol
Batt has not changed a bit over the summer. It is still stuck in the same liberal-
minded rut the rest of American media is in. I am refreshed to find that our
newspaper still lacks the courage to defend or even present an unbiased
opinion of conservative issues. I take pen in hand not to argue on the side of
gun-owners or the NRA, but simply to express my wish that any media
institution would show enough courage to show two sides of any issue. The
Baft still, like all media, never refuses a cheap shot at the NRA, and The
Battalion seems to derive particular satisfaction out of blasting the Corps of
Cadets every chance it gets. I hope, but do not expect, to see an editorial
defending guns, the NRA, and the Corps, or an apology by The Battalion or
Ms. Krenek to gun owners, the NRA, and the Corps. I would like to see this,
but I do not expect that The Battalion will show enough courage to print
both sides of an issue, or heaven forbid, the conservative side only. I also
expect an apology to the Aggie student body for the inference that a bunch of
dumb cajuns could whip us Aggies in a gunfight.
Guy Mathews ’90
Editor’s note: Once again, we’d like to clarify that editorials, columns and
letters to the editor reflect the opinions of their authors, and opinions are
one-sided. The Battalion tries to print letters and columns representing all
sides of an issue, and news stories continue to cover both sides of issues.
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editoiial staff reserves the right to edit letters
for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must be signed and
must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Sondra Pickard, Editor
John Jarvis, Managing Editor
Sue Krenek, Opinion Page Editor
Rodney Rather, City Editor
Robbyn Lister, News Editor
Loyd Brumfield, Sports Editor
Tracy Staton, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper
ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Sta
tion.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial
board or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions
of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students
in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Depart
ment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during
Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination
periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school
year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re
quest.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M
University, College Stadon, TX 77843-4111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216
Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX
77843-4111.
A little harmless plagiarism ...
Lewis
Grizzard
So what’s the
big deal about a
little harmless
plagiarism? They
are taking out Sen.
Joe Biden’s
appendix with a
broken beer bottle
since it was
learned the
former
presidential
candidate from
Delaware occasionally borrowed a word
here and a word there when making
speeches.
Most everybody has stolen words. I
steal jokes and tell them in public and
never give credit to whoever it was who
first told me the joke.
My boyhood friend and idol,
Weyman C. Wannamaker, Jr., a great
American, once went to the library and
copied down Lee’s farewell speech to his
troops and turned it in to our teacher,
Miss McDonald, for his history term
paper.
When confronted with the charge of
plagiarism by Miss McDonald, Weyman
said, “I’m sorry, but I couldn’t think of a
better way to say all that.”
The only time I’ve ever been accused
of plagiarism since I turned columnist
was when a reader sent me a page out of
her local paper that had my picture with
an Erma Bombeck column.
“You should be ashamed,” wrote the
lady.
How could I steal from Erma
Bombeck? I’ve never had a husband
who snored, nor changed a single baby’s
diaper.
Some plagiarists are quite cagey. I
received a letter from a high-school
student a few years back. Said the letter:
“I have chosen you as the subject for
my English term paper. Would you
please write down six pages about
yourself, and please be careful as the
teacher counts off for misspelled
words.”
Other plagiarists are stupid. I once
wrote a column about changing the
rules of golf to make the game easier.
A golf writer for another paper ran
the column word for word under his
byline. On the facing page was my
original column. I couldn’t help
wondering which of us the readers
would blame for stealing.
Other plagiarists are at least honest.
A fellow columnist called me onceand
said, “Listen, I want you to knowl'm
going to steal your idea for my column
I thanked the man. As longasyoutt
me up front, then it’s fine to pickmy
pocket.
The only problem in this instance
turned out to be the column ideawas
about hating the New York Yankees
baseball team. And the very daylhe
columnist ran his version of theidea,
Yankee catcher Thurman Munsonwa 1
killed in an airplane crash.
A common rule of thumb writers ut
on the plagiarism issue is, “You steal
from me, it’s plagiarism. 1 steal from
you, it’s research.”
For Joe Biden to run again in 1992. ;
he said he would when he announced
his withdrawal from the ’88 presidenti
race, he will need to choose his words
carefully, and convince us his previous
thievery and disinformation is nothing
for us to worry about.
I think, “I’m not a crook,” has anict
ring to it, don’t you?
Copyright 1987, Cowles Syndicate
BLOOM COUNTY
by BerRe Breathed