The Battalion
Page 5 • Monday, June 7, 2004
M9^ st
ui
Bush administration has proven itself ill-prepared for consequences of Iraq
war
T here was something different about
Memorial Day this year. Memorial
Day in the past has always been a day
of remembrance and reflection. Yet, the
minds of many were undoubtedly peering
into the future this year, wondering how
many more soldiers fighting in Iraq will be
honored next Memorial Day. This thought is
anything but comforting, yet it is one
Americans must not shy away from.
Refusing to consider the consequences of
invading Iraq may very well be the reason
the Iraq War, at this point, appears to be a disaster.
The public was led to believe that the Iraq war would be speedy
and relatively unproblematic. So 825 lost and 4,882 wounded
American troops later, it is not surprising that Newsweek is noting
similarities to the Vietnam War. However, the administration cannot
be blamed for misleading Americans about this aspect of the war.
Many within the White House and Pentagon believed U.S. troops
would be greeted with open arms as liberators. What the adminis
tration must answer to is why alternative solutions to such success,
such as widespread resistance within Iraq, anti-American sentiment
and rival religious factions, were not considered.
Or perhaps the reason Iraq appears to be such a mess is that
the public never reached a clear consensus on why America
invaded Iraq. For a country to send its troops into harm’s way, a
clear reason must be provided by its leaders. There was no such
reason. Fear-mongering, a tactic all too familiar to the right, was
used to gather overwhelming support within the United States.
Assertions about ties between al-Qaida and Iraq and the threat of
Saddam's WMDs were presented to the public as conclusive,
without-a-doubt facts. The most tragic event known to our gener
ation, the death of 3,000 American civilians, was used to quell
opposition to and even query of the decision to go to war.
As America now knows, there were no Iraqi ties to al-Qaida
and it’s debatable whether there were WMDs. In fact, the Bush
administration’s primary concern seems to have been not why to
go to war with Iraq, but how to induce the people to go along
with the war. In Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack,” after
CIA officials presented their “best evidence” that Saddam
Hussein possessed WMDs to the president, Bush responded,
“Nice try. but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna
convince Joe Public.” Bush’s attention should have been focused
on whether Saddam was a real threat to American national secu
rity rather than the public’s perception of his decision.
So now the reason for the war in Iraq has become humanitari
an — to topple a ruthless leader and to plant seeds of democracy
in the Middle East. Saddam was a ruthless leader and such a
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY
humanitarian effort is a noble cause. In fact, spreading democracy
to other countries is a tenet belonging to liberals and idealists,
not neo-conservatives like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The hope of democratization, empowering women and
improving the quality of life for Iraqis is why liberal
giants such as Thomas Friedman, Jacob Weisberg
and Fareed Zakaria backed the war with Iraq.
Yet, the costs have led many supporters of the
war to reconsider, including Weisberg who stated
in Slate, “Many of those costs — human, financial
and diplomatic — could have been reduced sub
stantially if President Bush hadn't gratuitously
alienated so many potential allies and sympathiz
ers, and if arrogance and ideology hadn't prevent
ed his Pentagon team from properly planning for
the occupation.”
Weisberg brings us full circle. Neither the
public nor its leaders were prepared for
the consequences of this war. No
matter the intentions behind a
decision to occupy a coun
try, the question of
whether or not occu
pation can be a suc
cess has to be strictly
scrutinized. The quest
for answers to the prob
lems of the Middle East
seems daunting. The
clash of two civilizations,
Arab and Western, will
define this century. With so much at
stake, why wasn’t the plan for “planting the
seeds of democracy” on Arab soil better
thought out?
The president has led Americans to a difficult place,
one we cannot leave yet. Doing so would create a power vac
uum within Iraq, and plant the seeds not for democracy, but for
more anti-American sentiment and new terrorism. Yet, no new
solutions are coming from the White House to suggest that the
war in Iraq could end successfully. Perhaps the solution is new
leadership.
John David Blakley is a sophomore
political science major.
Graphic by Will Loyd
MAIL CALL
In spite of the Supreme Court
decision, no ‘right’ to abort
The Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade v.
baby Roe, was fundamentally flawed: Baby Roe
could not confront it's accuser and didn't receive
proper legal representation, yet was sentenced to
death. It was this unjust decision that is now slow
ly being revisited, despite strong opposition using
the so-called "reproductive rights."
We must stop perpetuating the myth of a "right"
to abort. Unlike true human rights which protect
the individual, abortion by definition destroys the
rights of an individual (the baby). The vast majori
ty of abortions are performed to conveniently undo
the irresponsible actions of a couple; the price is
the loss of an innocent life. Abortion is not a basic
human right, it's an expedient political argument
for unborn euthanasia.
What about the argument of abortion for cases of
rape and incest? As often as this is brought up,
don't you ever wonder why we aren't charging thou
sands of criminals for rapes, statutory rapes and
incest? Are abortions being performed to cover up
such heinous crimes? Or is the argument just that,
an argument for political cover?
What about the argument of protecting the life of
the mother? Most mothers (and fathers) would self
lessly sacrifice their life to save their child, born or
unborn. With current medical science, isn't this an
incredible rare occurrence that is just trotted out
as another excuse?
There are individuals and organizations that con
tinually delude themselves with such thinking. This
includes doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath
by tearing apart a child or sucking its brains out.
Reconsider what you are supporting: Look at the
blood on your hands, and consider how lucky you
are that your own mother didn't abort you.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, the Bryan
mayor and City Council were probably blindsided
when the LaSalle people were exposed supporting
Planned Parenthood. The city should not be
involved, directly or indirectly, in supporting an
organization that kills unborn children. The Council
should publicly state that renewal of the LaSalle
contract is contingent of them backing away with
such controversial support; anything less would be
seen as a defacto approval of abortion.
Benito Flores-Meath
Class of 1983
Evidence supporting global
warming not ‘overwhelming’
In response to a June 3 mail call:
Mr. Powell is correct to take Mr. Walters to task
about his appeal to authority via a petition, howev
er his assertation that there is "overwhelming sci
entific evidence" of global warming is preposterous.
The warming trend quoted as being human
induced is that of temperature measurements on
the surface. These do not match higher atmos
phere readings taken by satellites and weather bal
loons. Global warming estimates are based on com
puter models of the atmosphere, which require a
warming of the upper atmosphere as well as the
lower, which isn't borne out by the data available.
The Kyoto Protocol and other such agreements
attempt to act based on the advice of what we
know are faulty models. Without an accurate
model showing a temperature trend produced by
human events that matches the temperature
records that we have, there is no proof that human
emissions effect the overall global temperature.
To legislate based on broken models of future
performance is absurd.
Matthew Gross
graduate student
NYC subway photo
ban a rights violation
I t is summertime, and that means that
it is vacation time. Across the country,
people will load up to go to those
places where they have always wanted to
go — places such as Yellowstone, San
Francisco and New York.
But those trips to New York may
become upsetting in the near future for
some tourists; NYC Transit, the arm of
New York’s Transit Authority that runs
the city’s buses and subways, has pro
posed a ban on taking pictures and video on its
buses and subways, according to MSNBC.
According to the article, anyone wishing to
take pictures would need a press pass or written
permission to do so. Violators would be subject to
a fine. This policy is a serious
problem, as it is a violation of the
First Amendment, and it will be
hard to enforce.
The idea of photography bans
during times of war is not new.
During World War II, there were
many places where photos were not
permitted. But these bans only last
ed for the duration of hostilities,
until the threat had subsided.
But fighting terrorism is a much
more open-ended commitment,
something few Americans have
seemed to grasp. Even if the West
wins the war with Muslim funda
mentalists, there will not come a
single day when the enemy will
surrender, stack its arms and admit its crimes. If
the enemies are beaten, they will simply fade away
as a coherent force.
But even if terrorism related to the Middle East
ends, there are still plenty of people who might
perpetrate a terrorist-style attack. There will still
be people like Timothy McVeigh or foreign crimi
nals, such as drug cartels, who have just as much
of a taste for blood as al-Qaida, but perhaps on a
less spectacular scale.
And even if terrorists wanted to attack a subway
train, do they really need pictures when they can
ride that which they wish to attack? A terrorist
could ride the line everyday and commit its every
detail to memory, without a camera. He could even
try to get a job with the Transit Authority, if he had
a clean record, and learn all kinds of infonnation
vital to planning an attack.
In the end, a ban on unauthorized photography
will not make the subway safer, but it
will simply help the terrorists in their
goal of trampling the rights enshrined in
the Constitution. Even if the ban were
constitutional and did not contribute to
the erosion of the First Amendment, it
would be hard to enforce.
Think of the tourists who ride the
subway every day. They all want to
take pictures of friends, family and the
regular New Yorkers in the station, as
souvenirs of their vacation. Will they all be
accosted by police to see if they have their
papers in order?
The idea of stopping every person with a cam
era in the subway is just as ludicrous as the idea
that every visitor will send off for
written permission to take photos.
Almost certainly the Transit
Authority will have to depend upon
the discretion of its police officers
to decide which photographers to
stop and question.
Even New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg has spoken out on the
foolishness of the ban. He was
quoted in a radio interview with
1010 AM WINS (a New York sta
tion) saying “if there are some
tourists and they want to take pic
tures of each other on the subway
train — come on, get real.”
Although his remarks are not
an official stance, they likely
accurately reflect the sentiments of the majority
of New Yorkers and Americans who are not pet
rified at every possible threat. Although it is
important to exercise diligence in security mat
ters, it is just as important to keep such security
considerations from doing a disservice to those
they are meant to protect.
This is why NYC Transit, along with other
public agencies, must not get carried away with
hysteria over the terrorist threat. They should
undertake measures to try to provide safety for
their riders, but they cannot stop every threat. It is
this inability, along with the Constitution, that
should provide a measure of rationality for the
extent of security regulations.
David Shoemaker is a senior
management major.
...fighting
terrorism is a much
more open-ended
commitment...
there will not
come a single day
where the enemy
will surrender...