2 Opinion
Tuesday, January 15, 1991
The Battalion Opinion Page Editor Jennifer Jeffus 845-3314
Editorials
Editorials expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial board and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents
We hope, pray for peace
(1
ive us one good reason why we should sacrifice any
more young American lives for Kuwait. Or oil. Or world order. Or to stop
"naked aggression" against Kuwait. Or any of the other reasons our well-
meaning President has given us for why a war with Iraq is necessary.
Our nation's national security is not at stake. American lives are not even
being threatened now that the hostages are no longer "human shields."
Instead, our nation is poised to fight a war — and possibly lose thousands of
its young people — over oil.
The Kuwaiti jpeople have suffered a great tragedy from the Iraqis, and we
should feel genuine sympathy and compassion tor them, but we cannot
support the further loss of American lives to save them from a tragedy they
already have endured. Would you sacrifice your brother or sister if a friend
lost his?
Our nation cannot step in during every time of conflict. George
Washington warned our young republic to let other countries solve their
own problems. Furthermore, the United States has not intervened during
other acts of aggression such as Israel's invasion of Lebanon, India's
invasion of Pakistan, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and most
recently, Lithuania. However, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Lithuania
don't possess vast reserves of oil.
The President has tossed other reasons at us about why we need conflict
with Iraq — to establish world order, keep Saddam from building nuclear
weapons and protect "our way of life" — but none of these justify the deaths
of countless young men and women.
We cannot support a war with Iraq when the consequences are so deadly
and the justification so poor. We hope and pray for peace.
The Battalion Editorial Board
SADDAM HUSSEIN
BE ’MAIMED!
LEAVE KUTOIT
BY JANUAET15..
OR VIE GO
IN AND
KICK A
LITTLE...
Pentagon rules limit free press
s the possibility of
war in the Middle East looms closer,
the Bush Administration will no doubt
continue reminding Americans why
their sons, daughters, mothers ancl
fathers have been sent to face death in
a dry, dusty country thousands of
miles from home.
They have been sent to Saudi Arabia
to protect the world from a madman
called Saddam Hussein. They are there
to show the world that unwarranted
aggression will not be tolerated by
America. They are there to restore the
peaceful nation of Kuwait to its rightful
citizens. But most of all, they have been
sent to the Persian Gulf to protect that
most sacred of American principles:
freedom.
These arguments for our military
presence in Saudi Arabia are quite
E lausible. Through his barbaric actions,
lussein has proven himself a threat to
freedom who sooner or later must be
reckoned with.
Ironically, however, the biggest
threat to the liberty of Americans
comes not from Iraq or Saddam
Hussein; it comes from the United
States government. Our rights to free
speech and a free press are being
trampled by the Bush Administration.
We hope war does not break out, but
if it does, the government has done its
best to see American people are kept
uninformed about the true costs of
such a war. The Pentagon's recently
proposed "rules" for news coverage of
a Gulf war actively interfere with
journalists' rights to obtain information
and relay it to the American people.
They originally established that,
among other things:
★ Journalists covering the war
would be confined to "pools" of
reporters, and all pools would be
constantly accompanied by military
escorts. (During tne Vietnam War,
reporters often traveled freely in
combat zones with no military escorts
at all.)
★ All interviews with servicemen
and women must be on the record. In
other words, no anonymous military
sources would be allowed.
★ Pictures or videotape showing
soldiers in extreme anguish would be
Dean
Sueltenfuss
Reader’s Opinion
another no-no. This presumably would
protect their rights to privacy.
(Conveniently, it also would prevent
American citizens back home from
seeing pictures that might turn them
against the war.)
★ Finally, and most blatantly, news
reports would be subject to a "security
review" by U.S. military officers before
being broadcast or published.
After meetings with news media '
representatives. Pentagon officials
softened these rules a little, but not
enough. Any interference with the free
press is too much. It is illegal, and it is
wrong.
The reason for these restrictions
seems obvious enough. If the
American people don't see pictures of
their loved ones being killed and
maimed, if they don't hear that 6,000
U.S. troops were massacred yesterday,
if they don't read that U.S. forces
accidentally killed dozens of innocent
civilians (as happened in Vietnam and
was covered up by our government
until exposed by journalist Seymour
Hersh), then they won't object to the
war.
As a student journalist who soon will
be a "real" journalist, (and more
importantly a U.S. citizen), I am
appalled by the Pentagon's restrictions.
Except for vital national security
matters, we have the right to be fully
informed of our government's actions,
especially when those actions might
directly result in the deaths of our
friends or loved ones.
What the Bush Administration has
done is tragic. It has moved us one step
away from democracy and one step
closer to the dictatorships we profess to
abhor.
These news media regulations are
perhaps more grotesque than Ronald
Reagan's failed efforts to force all
government employees — and former
employees — to obtain government
approval of any speeches, articles,
books or other writings before they
could be made public.
If I end up covering a war in the
Middle East (or a city council meeting
in Bryan, for that matter). I've already
decided what to say if someone tries to
tell me who I can talk to or what I can
or can't write:
"F— off."
I hope journalists covering a war in
the Persian Gulf will respond in a like
manner.
But this is not just a matter between
journalists and tne government.
Ultimately, it is a battle we all must
fight. As thousands of our citizens
prepare to face possible death in the
sands of the Middle East, we are
tempted to view Iraq as the one great
enemy of freedom.
Freedom, however, has many
adversaries right here in our own
country. Not all Americans believe in
free speech and free press. They all say
they do, of course.
But there are powerful people who
wish to hide their actions from us, and
they resent journalists making their
deeds known.
These people are in our government,
our corporations and our schools. The
only way we can discover their
misdeeds is through an active,
uncensored press.
By holding such people up to public
scrutiny, journalists make their actions
known to the American public.
Usually journalists fail — or do not
even try — to expose wrongdoing.
Occasionally, however, they succeed.
The Washington Post's coverage of the
Watergate affair is a prime example of
such a success.
Admittedly, the existence of a free
press in the United States has not
solved all our problems. But the
alternative — a government that
censors and stifles free expression — is
a truly frightening thought.
So as our country debates the
wisdom of entering into conflict with
Iraq, we must remember there are
other causes worth fighting for.
Certainly, SaddamHussein is a
menace, but we must bear in mind that
not all our enemies reside in Baghdad.
Some are alive and well right here in
the USA.
Dean Sueltenfuss is a senior
journalism major.
U.S. soldiers face war
E
or five months now we've sat
in the sands of anxiety and watched
American soldiers defending the sands
of a foreign monarchy which won't let
them have a beer, go to church or
celebrate Christmas.
But now our fears have joined
reality; war has been given the green
light. Since the beginning of the
Persian Gulf Crisis, U.S. diplomatic
policy has been: "Give up Kuwait, or
we'll bomb Iraq back to the Stone
Age!" But our military objectives are
turning from a defense of Saudi Arabia
to an offense to eliminate Iraq's military
power. We replace Operation Desert
Shield with Operation Desert Sword.
As we rush into bloodshed, let's pause
to see what has happened, and what
might be.
Weeks ago, the Bush Administration
reluctantly admitted the basic
motivation for its war stance is
economics — to protect our high-
energy lifestyle. But even as we make
battle ready, there is a growing belief
within the United States that war is too
high a price to pay for a buck less at the
pump, or for any conceivable prize to
t>e gained from this mess.
We're told every effort for peace was
made. But we find the "extra mile for
peace" has been no more than stating
our demands on Iraq an extra time or
two. We really haven't moved an extra
inch for peace. But what option other
than war is there? If we went to war
with Iraq, we would eventually "win."
But do you consider the unavoidable
casualties which will come with a door-
to-door removal of Iraqi soldiers
entrenched in the cities? That the war
would be over in weeks is too
optimistic. None of our Arab "allies"
has committed to any offensive action,
only defensive. When the United
States attacks, our Arabs will not be on
the front line. When we attack Iraq and
Iraq attacks Israel and Israel attacks
Iraq, we can expect the rest of the Mid-
East also to become a fire bed. What
will "naked aggression" mean then?
What else can be done? The world
simply could accept that Iraq controls
Kuwait for the short-term, and use
what military force is necessary to truly
Bud
Cox
Reader’s Opinion
enforce worldwide economic
sanctions. Iraq is not self-sufficient.
There are increasing shortages of food
and morale in Iraq. Gasoline riots and
soldier defections tell us economic
sanctions are effective. Sanctions rob
Hussein of any victory in Kuwait; war
will reduce Kuwait to rubble.
We could continue to demand that
Israel address Palestinian grievances as
we have done in the past. This cannot
be seen as a concession to Hussein
since — until the gulf crisis — this was
U.S. policy anyway. President Bush is
determined to enforce U.N.
resolutions.
But what happened to U.N.
Resolution 242, demanding a solution
to the Palestinian problem? Reminding
the world of our support of 242 would
keep the issue from being called a
concession. It would allow Hussein to
think he has an excuse to back out of
Kuwait! Regardless, broad-range Mid-
East affairs must be addressed, or else
we'll be facing this rotten situation
again and again.
Most important, a rigorous campaign
in the United States to promote energy
independence is vital — vital not only
with respect to the present gulf crisis,
but to our future as a productive
nation. We are enslaved to our master
(oil-addiction), and his mistresses
(nations which control foreign oil
supplies).
We pay the price environmentally, as
petro-fuel combustion destroys the air
we breathe, and technologically, as the
abundance of cheap oil smothers
efforts to develop alternate and
renewable energy resources. Worse,
we're about to pay the price with the
lives of our kids in Saudi Arabia so that
we may continue to pay! Isn't it insane?
But for the moment, we are couched
at war's doorstep. Did we have no
alternatives? You decide.
Bud Cox is a senior mechanical
engineering major.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Lisa Ann Robertson,
Editor
Kathy Cox, Managing Editor
J ennifer J effus,
Opinion Page Editor
Chris Vaughn, City Editor
Keith Sartin,
Richard Tijerina,
News Editors
Alan Lehmann, Sports Editor
Fredrick D. Joe, Art Director
Kristin North,
Lifestyles Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup
porting newspaper operated as a commu
nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan-
College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion
are those of the editorial board or the au
thor, and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of Texas A&M administrators,
faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion is published daily, except
Saturday, Sunday, holidays, exam peri
ods, and when school is not in session dur
ing fall and spring semesters; publication
is Tuesday through Friday during the
summer session. Newsroom: 845-3313.
Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes
ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full
year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur
nished on request: 845-2696.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed
McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station, TX 77843-1 111.
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.
the itch
by Nito