hied
? fits. Gre;
ing 1° w
0 and O'-
pax lei
^ person,
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Wednesday, July 14, 2004
giants, Tr
iUOUE MONEY FOR THE MILITARY
visits
Manaif
ptid otto
.(jemiK
,ugHoutiii
!,( with H
,ood wnt;
ills. Pleas
|0 ursofat
^etsoluto
preterrac
1-5. On}
^tacted. I
i H-S- Or*
payS-
idayl Or
i'CLE
gKffli, seH
is, lights
iol< sarly 1
.cKdi-Com
./SIMM
ack, $25t
ATE
loan.r
o avoid reinstatement of the draft, increased spending on troops is necessary
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
t has been more than 10 years since the
fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the
Cold War. Since then, the U.S. military
i lacked a major conventional enemy that
ild match its full might. This has led to a
valuation of force levels and strategies for
U.S. military.
Jfhe strategy adopted was that the U.S.
l8+ Ctr< itary would stay sizable enough to be able
? ight two major regional conflicts at the
ne time. The stages that were envisioned at
I time for these conflicts were the Middle
stand the Korean Peninsula, where countries that could pose
treat with conventional military forces still exist.
BVs recently as December 2002, Secretary of Defense Don-
petefBio:ilf Rumsfeld was quoted in a CNN interview saying, “We
spec j re capable of fighting two major regional conflicts as the
■ional strategy and the force-sizing construct clearly indi-
:atc. We’re capable of winning decisively in one, and swiftly
dfeating in the case of the other, and let there be
doubt about it.”
■ That has been the stated policy of the United
S ites since the end of the first Bush administration,
tin iugh Clinton and now George W. Bush. The
idc i would be to hold off the enemy in one country,
Ap t wl le defeating the enemy in the second. Then the
can :;p| force of the U.S. military could be brought to
lar against the second enemy.
3W#But the decisions made by lawmakers in Wash-
in; on did not ensure that the military could do
TES
<-gjBiat was expected of it. Units were decommis-
; ;g: ■■ siciied; equipment, planes and ships were retired
but not replaced; and training was curtailed some
what. Meanwhile, Congress failed to ensure that the
p|y and benefits stayed competitive with other jobs,
3,r which is important with an all-volunteer force. But
motbii jly problems that were developing went unseen.
;i-648«|Until Iraq.
Now, the military, which was stretched with commitments in
ie ^ Afghanistan, became drastically understaffed in Iraq. The plan-
Avail£ nmg done before the invasion apparently envisioned a quick,
easy war like the first Gulf War. But the plans did not consider
, j the ferocity with which Saddam’s supporters and radical Is-
979w lamists would fight back.
^ I Now the United States needs more troops in Iraq to secure the
,e 32 gentry and future of the government there. According to Newsday,
23 + .the Army wants to recall 5,674 soldiers who have left the service.
>*tegind, according to another article from Newsday, five brigades of
rin ? 40 f Tthe National Guard will be going to Iraq, and the 42nd Infantry
vision of New York, a Guard formation, will command regular
rTndStArmy units as well as Reserve and National Guard ones,
tcepi be«The military has not had to lean upon National Guard and
reserve units like this in some time. And this pres
sure upon members of the Army espe
cially, with long tours in the Middle East
and Afghanistan, has hurt recruitment
and retention.
Luckily, Congress has not ignored
the current problem. According to an
article from The Houston Chronicle,
several members of the House Armed
Services Committee commented on
the fact that the Army particularly
was being pushed hard.
Rep. Ike Skelton, the
top Democrat on the
committee, was quoted
in the article, saying that,
“We’re taxing our part-
time soldiers, our Guard and
Reserves nearly to the breaking point.”
It should now be clear to
policymakers and the publ
a critical turning point has been
reached with the concept of
an all-volunteer military.
The money that they are
paid and the conditions that
they function under, such
as the length of tours, are
not conducive to retention or
recruitment. If this country wants
to continue to avoid a draft, it is
time for the United States to put its
money where its
mOUtll iS.
Congress and ^ ^(l(
the American people
have to realize that the cost of
avoiding a draft includes better pay
and benefits for soldiers and the costs of training
and equipping them properly. And the public should simply
stop comparing current conflicts with the 1991 Gulf War. The
United States will never likely fight such an easy war against
such a large enemy again. That war was an aberration, an in
stance where an enemy with little will to fight simply gave up
after weeks of bombing. If the United States were ever to fight
North Korea, it would most assuredly not fold like Saddam’s
forces did in 1991.
Congress and the public must realize that to secure our
national interests, without a draft of any kind, serious money
and effort will have to be put up, and very soon. There are still
countries like North Korea in the world — ones with power
ful weapons and the will to use them. In these potential future
u-
Ifthiscountiy
wants to continue
to avoid a draft, it is
time for the United
States to put its
money where its
mouth is.
conflicts the only option will be to resort to the armed forces,
which must be ready. As things stand now, the U.S. military
is incapable of fighting two regional wars as envisioned by
the strategy. This must change. The military can ill afford any
further inattention.
David Shoemaker is a senior
management major.
Graphic by Grade Arenas
MAIL CALL
estaurant has right
:o promote politics
irj In response to Nick Anthis’ July 13
Knail call:
Yes, it’s true that we have the F- Kerry
hirts at New York Sub. And yes, it’s true
lat there’s an elephant awkwardly posi-
oning himself behind a donkey on the
reast pocket.
Let me get one thing straight for Mr.
nthis and anyone else who wants to
house.
179-690-1
n/SbthW*
n
411
ng rooff
igainvillea
Jacob ai
included.
340/mo,
call (97?
A//D, 405
5 ! 2bdrni'
tile, $361
2ba hoes
included
/ahoo.co*
/2bth
ole, DSL
3/2/2,
'ed, $325
jded.on?
nished"
>a.
Jail Jacl
3ke this too far: pulling the “rape" card
a cheap shot and insinuating that
i/e would endorse such a despicable
ct represents mental weakness. Hate
n NYS for its politics or because we
lessed up your order; don’t claim we
romote rape, whether it’s a donkey or a
residential candidate. It’s absurd, and I
/ould imagine embarrassing to your fel-
3w progressives.
You're correct, Mr. Anthis, there IS
NOTHING humorous about rape.
Also, my goal is not to “alienate
rogressives" as you say in your letter,
lather, it was a way to embrace the con-
ervative members of the community. I
nderstand each time you take a side in
'/mo. +13 hotly contested subject such as poli
os or religion, you automatically anger
r offend those people who aren’t of the
ame opinion.
understand that you will not be re-
0 Jrning to New York Sub, and I under-
tand your position. 1 would most likely
ot eat at an establishment if it had F-
3/2/214 lush on its T-shirts.
I understand that I will look like an
immoral guy to some people, and that's
OK. It’ll happen as long as I’m fortu
nate enough to portray my opinion in a
public forum.
“Rape" card aside, I respect your
views Mr. Anthis as well as the views of
every other dissenter. For the record, my
goal is never to anger or offend people,
but rather bring like-minded people to
gether and have a sense of humor in the
process. It’s just a shame that your din
ing experience has to suffer as a result.
Austin Harkness
Owner
New York Sub
Restaurant T-shirt
is free speech
In response to Nick Anthis’ July 13 mail
call:
I am upset about the utter disregard
for free speech displayed by Mr. Anthis.
This T-shirt was made at a local estab
lishment and their employees are of
fered this chance to wear the shirt. Free
speech is free speech and it should not
be censored in order that others may
not be offended. My advice is for those
offended to grow thicker skin.
Before he starts slinging accusa
tions or impropriety he should be fully
informed on the situation.
By the way I will be dining at New
York Sub.
Michael W. Hart
Class of 2004
Wal-Mart should settle lawsuit
and stop discrimination policies
R emoving
sexual dis
crimination
from the workplace
has been a difficult
but worthwhile cru
sade for the millions
of American women
in America’s work
force. Recently the
country’s largest
company, Wal-
Mart, learned that it too will have
a place in the history of this fight.
Whether Wal-Mart wants to go down
in history as a chauvinistic corpora
tion or a progressive caring company
depends on how it handles the court
case set before it.
In San Francisco, a federal judge
has ruled that a sexual discrimination
lawsuit filed in 2001 by six women
employed by Wal-Mart can now
proceed as a class action suit. This
new suit represents all 1.6 million of
Wal-Mart’s current and former female
employees. This case is easily the
largest sexual discrimination lawsuit
in United States history.
When the numbers are considered,
Wal-Mart certainly appears to be a
sexist company. According to Time
magazine, 65 percent of Wal-Mart’s
hourly employees are female, but
two-thirds of the company’s managers
are men. Female employees work
ing hourly jobs take home $ 1,100
less than men, while female manag
ers earn $14,500 less than their male
counterparts. On average, it takes men
2.86 years to get promoted to assistant
manager, yet, despite better perfor
mance ratings, it takes women 4.38
years to accomplish the same task.
If these numbers aren’t bad enough,
the plaintiffs present many stories that
describe how Wal-Mart’s manage
ment blatantly discriminated against
its female employees. USA Today
recounts the tale of one woman who
said that her division’s monthly sales
meetings were held at a Hooters
restaurant. Such a policy definitely
does not fit into Wal-Mart’s image as
a pro-family company.
Another woman recalls what hap
pened when she confronted her boss
about the fact that her male counter
parts were paid more. His answer was
that men “had families to support.”
Such outdated thinking on the part of
the company’s management must be
changed if Wal-Mart wants to stay
out of court.
Finally, a female
Wal-Mart employee
tells of the discrimina
tion she faced when she
asked to be transferred
to the hardware depart
ment. She was asked,
“You’re a girl. Why do
you want to be in hard
ware?” When manage
ment makes decisions
based upon incorrect
stereotypes, it is no
surprise that most of
Wal-Mart’s work force
feels like the company
doesn’t care about their
needs. Wal-Mart must
deal with these problems.
Wal-Mart’s excuse for these in
equalities is not convincing. Accord
ing to BBC, the company believes
that it should not be held responsible
because “promotions were decided by
local managers.” The fact that Wal-
Mart shifts the blame to its individual
stores instead of settling the issue
indicates that it does not have a legal
leg to stand on.
The obvious and correct choice for
Wal-Mart is to settle the case outside
of a courtroom. Any jury presented
with such evidence would easily find
Wal-Mart to be in the wrong. Wal-
Mart should willingly pay the largest
settlement ever to avoid the largest
legal embarrassment ever. Even a
multibillion-dollar settlement would
be peanuts compared to the money
lost when the company’s stock drops
after a lost lawsuit.
Wal-Mart needs to solve the prob
lems the lawsuit addresses. It should
offer free childcare to offset some of
these costs to its underpaid workforce.
Business Week also suggested that a
settlement could bring in an indepen
dent monitor to review Wal-Mart’s
pay and promotion records.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona
Williams said the company would be
happy to cooperate with an indepen
dent monitor. The company should
use this opportunity to
purge itself of insti
tutionalized discrimb
nation and prove to
its employees and
customers that it cares
about women.
Since it is obvious
that Wal-Mart would
lose this case, its law
yers have been doing
everything they can to
keep the case out of
court, with Wal-Mart
executives describing
the case as “unmanage
able and unconstitu
tional” for the court
room according to the
BBC. It is time for the company to
take responsibility for its actions.
Sam Walton, the original founder of
Wal-Mart, once said that he had “al
ways been driven to buck the system,
to innovate, to take things beyond
where they’ve been.” At this critical
juncture, Wal-Mart finds itself faced
with an interesting question: Does it
follow the words of its former leader
and “buck the system” of discrimi
nation, or does it refuse to pull its
company’s policies into the twenty-
first century?
For Wal-Mart’s sake, it should
choose to reform itself without the
help of the legal system. Yet if the
company refuses to go the easy route,
it is certain that a jury will have no
problem “rolling back” some of the
company’s sexist policies.
Jonathan Smith is a junior
history major.
JONATHAN
SMITH
Wal-Mart
should willingly
pay the largest
settlement ever to
avoid the largest
legal embarras-
ment ever.