Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 22, 2000)
flay. November 22, 20(X) eady or not THE BATTALION Page 5 —American military cutbacks unwise; need for a prepared army growing larger M spring/ sir INMATES_ . ^ f necessary magnitude ot the military has been debated throughout the history of the ^^riln|ed States. During times of 2263. eace, the size and effectiveness of Jnilitary is invariably reduced. I need for a strong military is uestioned when there is not a war, ilit America has been caught off ANDREW STEPHENSON jiaiil before because times of eace introduced desires for the nation to remain solated and out of the world’s affairs. While today’s spring. 3- Cal busV or politic 8 h ave changed from years past, the 3 us r° 6 Ber of the U.S. military has remained relatively ^ng since World War II. In recent years, however, t'h; i begun to take a rather abrupt decline. B Pentagon report to Congress released at the end drmaaho,vlf August said the military is facing training prob- ia 695-0375 ^ns, personnel shortages and aging equipment. The n3bth house- isport included a study of the military’s readiness, 6K0vin - vhi h is judged against a theoretical baseline of closa to csrsi ighting two wars at the same time. According to the i Brt. if the country were to fight two major con- startmg da r tils at the same time, it would run a risk of in- ties.esw: i re |sed casualties because of shortfalls in the ability “ 1 Tiove, supply and protect troops. Ihe report cited several areas of “strategic con- ern ’ that were related to the ability of the military to a^yd up forces in the areas where war had broken iut. It also dealt with whether the military could initi- counteroffensive, such as shortfalls in mobility ,nd logistics and limits in dealing with terrorists and r spring, shed, with rm/2Wh, hily inter, 2-pools, tn 48999, -®pons of mass destruction. podsb#iFhere were also specific assessments for each ser- icc. The Army has shortages in some critical enlist- mv2Mh fc d pills and at the rank of captain, causing personnel jso/mo. +i/3t g at |i ness concerns. In the Navy, shortfalls would oc- -B with aviation equipment if air wings and carriers tetroma® In 6 forced to support two major conflicts. The Air d at$25<vnx).*J|ce is facing shortages in many critical job skills, n^paliiar f ve " as shortages of spare parts and skill level mis- natches in many personnel areas, hurting its ability rcc qEffectively train. ilWhe truth about t today’s military must be faced, ng Lots-oi-k America’s armed forces are one-third to one-half 1 P^'^.smtiller since the end of the Cold War, but deploy- i), inside t|tients have increased 300 percent since 1991. Dur- the conflict in Kosovo, the consequences of ask ing the military to do more were evident in the ctastfBrtages in everythingfrom cruise missiles to carri ers. Defense analyst Dr. John Hillen, an Army veteran of Desert Storm, said, “Readiness problems manifest themselves slowly over time and get fixed only slowly and deliberately. The idea that the Army’s well-publicized readiness problems from 1998 to late 1999 are suddenly and magically fixed is simply not true. The Army has used the sorts of accounting tricks that have plagued readiness reporting for 30 years in order to suddenly become ready. Language such as | that used in re sponses to lack of readiness] is code for ‘We could not meet the standard, so we lowered the bar.’ ” A Washington Times article from March 28 re ports, “The U.S. military was sent on an unprecedent ed 48 overseas missions in the 1990s. By contrast, the military was sent on only 20 such missions in the 15 years between the U.S. exit from Vietnam and the end of the Cold War.” At this same time, “The active duty force was shrunk by 800,000 troops, from 2.2 million to 1.4 million — a 40 perccjit reduction. The Army was cut from 18 to 10 divisions; the Navy went from 567 ships to just over 300; and the Air Force lost almost half of its 24 fighter wings.” Another article from Aug. 28 reported, “The De fense budget has now dropped to about 2.9 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (down from 4.2 percent of GDP in 1992) — a depth not reached since before Pearl Harbor.” > One of the major consequences of the actions has been that many National Guard members, so-called “weekend warriors,” have been forced to assume an active service role. The National Guard reserves have been called up only five times since the end of the Cold War. Four of these instances were authorized by Clinton since 1994, while the fifth was during the Gulf War. These absences of civilians place great strains on both employers and employees, as those who are reserves must engage in active service. Charles Cragin, assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, said at a Department of Defense con ference, “In this decade, we downsized this force by a million men and women — 700,000 out of the active components and 300,000 out of the reserve compo nents. Then, all of a sudden, we said, ‘Hey, we’re a million fewer, but now we’ve got more missions’.” In 1900, when President George Bush called up the re serves for Desert Storm, newspapers throughout America ran banner headlines. Cragin said, “If we were to do that today every time the president called up the reserves, we would have that headline indeli bly imprinted in every newspaper every single day.” The threats that face America are very real, and having the strongest military in the world goes a long way toward ensuring the safety of this country. How ever, due to cutbacks and the post-Cold War “draw down,” the military readiness of American armed fqrces has taken a serious hit. The world’s best mili tary should not be having problems with out-of-date equipment or with a lack of qualified personnel. The solution to these problems is simple; the nec essary funding must be restored to the military bud get. Despite the claims of many that increased mili tary spending would do nothing but increase taxes, in truth it would be nothing but good for America. The armed forces buy American, increasing available jobs, and putting more money back into the American economy. This country would then be able to feel se cure as it enters this new century, knowing that it will be protected by a fighting force that has been given every chance to succeed, not one that has been ren dered ineffective. Andrew Stephenson is a sophomore environmental design major. course for the Git iterycourseton Mail Call .vel |un rights not debat- ' . r' able, safety mea- jxe Hotel htf. srapes unnecessary can now wBj/i response to Nicholas Roznovsky’s |tov. 18 column. JED ivou really showed your ignorance of ? M Constitution in your article, Mr. ,s CalM ' Kznovsky. It is ridiculous to compare , j-mm right to keep and bear arms to the f LOSS to drive a car. Please show me 16LEAN „ #here in the Constitution we have a jseuptosotefcranteed right to drive. m o«bac«Y ou p 0 j nt out Washington, D.C., and —--dfoiicago as places that require some New Low!/ t ° ^ , y ; h i checks, qorm of gun registration. You must J/e forgotten the fact that these les’ violent crime rate with firearms as gone up drastically since their gun trol measures took effect. Gun registration and licensing are e first steps toward confiscation, pe people of Nazi Germany and the viet Union probably wish they did not mn eg ster their guns, because the govefn- 2 - :: nents knew exactly where to go to take t« Tie guns away. Instead, the people of pm m se two countries were forced to live derthe most horrific regimes in this ntury. Why? Because they had no iy to overthrow them. The Constitution clearly states the [ght.of the people to keep and bear tis shall not be infringed." When [u force people to take classes or pay for licenses, you are infringing upon their rights. It clearly shows the ignorance of the (eft when they think gun registration will lead to lower crime. Here is a little hint for you — the criminals will not register their guns. Only the law abiding citizens will. Here is a better way to deal with gun safety:Gun safety needs to be taught at home. Parents need to stop relying on the government for everything and become more accountable in their own homes. But as the saying goes, “You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands." James Drew Class of ’01 Past Petroleum United States should consider human rights over oil The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Let ters must be 300 words or less and include the au thor’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit let ters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com mmv mmogR MJWfiSAT. sc<^>. expo wr A lthough countries like Iraq and Yu goslavia domi nated foreign policy dis cussions during this year’s election, the next president of the United States may face his first foreign policy show down with a nation a lit tle closer to home. The country in question is the South American oil-exporting nation of Venezuela. Its president, Hugo Chavez, has taken an authoritarian stance that has in creased since his re-election in July. Unless America wants a South American Castro armed with the ability to withhold oil, Washington must act now. Chavez first took office in February 1999. A former army paratrooper, Chavez led an unsuccessful coup attepipt in 1992. He reached office by capturing the hearts of the electorate with his promise to reignite the spirit of patriot Simon Bolivar in the na tion’s government. Many Venezuelans are now dubious about another of his promises — keeping the country from becoming a military state. Since his rise to power, Chavez has wast ed little time in appointing current and re tired military officers to prominent posts once held exclusively by civilians, such as governorships, legislative seats and cabinet posts. In late October, Chavez, or “El Com- mandante” appointed Gen. Guaicaipuro Lameda to head Venezuela’s state-owned oil company. To take his new position, Lameda must leave his current job as direc tor of the National Budget Office. Chavez has already named his successor, also an ac tive-duty general. Chavez’s most recent initiative has in creased the military’s influence even fur ther. More than 500 schools have been cre ated on military bases throughout the country to provide Venezuela’s poor with meals and education. These schools, which Chavez calls his Bolivarian schools, are run by military officers dressed in combat fa tigues. Critics of Chavez see the new schools as an overt attempt to brainwash the nation’s children. One of Venezuela’s leading historians, Guillermo Moron, told The New York Times that Chavez’s Bolivarian schools policy “could be very dangerous because it opens the way to ideological indoctrination and militarization.” For its part, the government responds that it is merely trying to provide economi cally disadvantaged children an education with the tools it has readily available. “The press says the government is mili tarizing the classroom,” said Col. Marco Fernandez, principal of one of the largest Bolivarian schools, “but that is not what is happening here at all.” . It is surprising that the press has said anything at all, given the blatant disregard and outright contempt Chavez displays to ward it. Over the past few months, Chavez has become increasingly critical of the Venezuelan media, going as far as to warn reporters to “be careful” during nationally televised speeches. The United Stotes can not allow every regime with an oil well to tyran nize its population. At some point, the United States must put people before oil. Chavez often publicly criticizes the print media while monopolizing Venezuelan television, on which he often speaks for hours at a time. In the first two weeks of February alone, Chavez spent more than nine hours in front of the television cam eras and the nation. His subjects vary from the highly partisan, such as attacks on his opponents, to the completely frivolous, like the meaning of love and anecdotes about his distant relatives. Members of Venezuela’s fledgling op position party are outraged by Chavez’s recent call for a national referendum to grant him the power to disband the na tion’s labor unions. Opponents say the ref erendum is unconstitutional and the most blatant sign that Chavez is trying to estab lish a full-scale dictatorship. International labor organizations such as the Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Labor Organization have agreed, filing protests with various international bodies. Chavez’s response to their objections left little room for diplomatic interpretation. “What do I care about this international or ganization from who knows where?” he said at a rally. The most disturbing development in Chavez’s reign over Venezuela has been his development of diplomatic ties with a num ber of America’s most virulent enemies. During a 10-day world tour in August, Chavez stopped in Libya and Iraq. Chavez, in defiance of U.S. wishes, became the first elected head of state to visit Iraq since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It does not appear that Chavez is overly concerned with the United States, even though the United States is Venezuela’s key trading partner. During his stay in Libya, Chavez denounced the U.S. 1986 bombing of Tripoli as a “criminal act.” Under his or ders, Venezuela has denied U.S. anti-drug planes permission to fly over the country for reconnaissance missions. He also re cently announced plans to send oil to Cuba in defiance of the nearly 40-year-old U.S. blockade of the communist stronghold. Chavez’s alliance with Castro should come as no surprise, since the two played baseball together during Chavez’s visit to Havana. Chavez does not attempt to hide his respect for Castro, a man he has praised as an inspiration on many occasions. Chavez also openly preaches the teaching of Che Guevara, the brains behind the Cuban communist revolutionary movement. It has become painfully clear that Chavez does not care about whether the United States accepts him. He no doubt feels that Venezuela’s position as a major oil provider to the United States grants him some immu nity while he emulates the authoritarian dic tators he holds in such esteem. If he wants to join them, he deserves all the benefits of membership, including the staunch opposition of the U.S. government. Washington should not allow the country’s hunger for oil to blind it to the injustices in Venezuela. The United States cannot allow every regime with an oil well to tyrannize its pop ulation. At some point, the United States must put people before oil. Nicholas Roznovsky is a senior political science major.