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.