Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, October 9,2002
- Oregon Daily Emerald-—
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editors:
Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne
Afghanistan
war is not the
success people
might think
Opposition to the planned war on Iraq is mounting
around the globe and even in the halls of Congress.
Few, however, are willing to criticize the war in
Afghanistan, seeing it as the one shining success of the
war on terrorism. One year later (the bombing started
Oct. 7, 2001), it’s a suitable time for a critical look at
some of those “successes.”
The war increased the threat of terrorism. “Classi
fied investigations of the al-Qaida threat now under
way at the FBI and CIA have concluded the war in
Afghanistan failed to diminish the threat to the United
States,” according to the June 16 New York Times.
“Instead, the war might have complicated counterter
rorism efforts by dispersing potential attackers across
a wider geographic area.” Middle-level operatives of
the al-Qaida network used the opportunity to
strengthen contacts with other Islamic groups in the
region, increasing the pool from which future terror
ists will be drawn. And the war didn’t result in the ap
prehension of Osama bin Laden.
Many innocents were killed. More than 7 million
Afghans were directly dependent on aid, which was
disrupted for September, October and part of No
vember, first by the threat of bombing and then by
the bombing. According to a survey by the London
Guardian newspaper focusing on the effects of that
disruption, “As many as 20,000 Afghans may have
lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the
U.S. intervention.” Civilian deaths directly from the
bombing are variously estimated at an additional
1,000 to 8,000.
The United States installed a puppet regime, throw
ing democracy out the window. The loya jirga or grand
council was peopled with delegates selected by the
United States.
According to Umar Zakhilwal and Adeena Niazi,
delegates to the loya jirga, “We delegates were denied
anything more than a symbolic role in the selection
process. A small group of Northern Alliance chieftains
decided everything behind closed doors.”
Since former monarch Zahir Shah, the most popu
lar candidate for interim president, was unsuitable for
U.S. interests, “the entire loya jirga was postponed for
almost two days while the former king was strong
armed into renouncing any meaningful role in the
government,” they said.
At that point, most delegates, aware that the U.S.
backed warlords held the monopoly of military power
and fearing for their lives, silently went along with the
American hijacking of the process.
The U.S. government has shown little concern for
the rights of women in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding
the expressed commitment to building infrastructure
for women’s education and health care, both shame
fully neglected under the Taliban, the Bush adminis
tration has been so niggardly as to block 8134 million
in Afghan humanitarian aid, citing domestic econom
ic problems. Of that, $2.5 million was for the Ministry
of Women’s Affairs, earmarked to build women’s cen
ters across Afghanistan.
The U.S. government has done little to alleviate
the extreme humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, let
alone rebuild the country. U.S. contributions
through UNICEF for Afghanistan have been less
than a third as much as Japan’s. In fact, today, as
winter approaches, 6 million Afghans — a larger
number than before Sept. 11, 2001 — are once
again on the brink, dependent on humanitarian aid
to get through the next months.
The Iraq war is likely to recapitulate all of these re
sults, from an increased risk of terrorism to fake
democracy to a humanitarian crisis (relief agencies
fear that bombing will disrupt government food distri
bution in Iraq). We don’t need any more “successes”
in the war on terrorism.
Rahul Mahajan is the author of "The New Crusade:
America's War on Terrorism" (Monthly Review Press, 2002).
© 2002, Rahul Mahajan. Distributed by Knight
Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
WE HA'JE To Wt>THE\l
V10RL& OP MANIACS WITtV
kCC/ESS TO \*JEAFbNS> OF
lA^s DesTKvxcnoN!
The ButToisI
fcH*n..■ inr I -■■■-;
Steve Baggs Emerald
Letters to the editor
Jokes perpetuate
racist stereotypes
As someone of Native American and
Celtic descent, I find it very disturbing that
there are people in this community who say
they are not racist because they have
friends with skin colors different than theirs
and are from other cultures. Many people
with bigoted points of view often use this as
a way to excuse racist comments and jokes
they make.
“Oh, well it’s just a joke. I didn’t mean
anything by it. See, I have friends of that
race/culture that I made the joke about.
They don’t mind. I’ve heard them say the
same things about themselves.”
This is how hate is perpetuated — how it
hides in society and becomes slowly ac
ceptable. Racism has more forms than just
openly racist views and violent actions.
As a community we need to be aware and
not perpetuate stereotypes in any form, or
tolerate jokes or comments that mock or
poke fun at any race, culture, religion, sex
ual preference, origin or way of life. When
we tolerate these things, we accept them
and teach our children to accept them. It is
time to break the cycle.
Marie Black
senior
business
New Microsoft policy
plays Big Brother
Many PC users may not realize it, but
Windows XP and the Windows Media
Player are bringing your computer into
the Big Brother world of George Orwell’s
novel, “1984.”
When you use the latest versions of
these, you give permission to Microsoft
to disable any other software they don’t
like. In particular, these programs may
disable programs which convert a CD
track to an MP3, even though it’s both le
gal and very convenient to play some
music while you work.
To be exact, you agree, “These security
related updates may disable your ability to
copy and/or play Secure Content and use
other software on your computer” (in MS
End User License Agreement for XP(SPl)
and WMF).
It’s like having your own personal po
liceman sitting in your computer, except
the policeman enforces Microsoft’s laws,
rather than your government’s. Mi
crosoft should publicize their new poli
cy: “What will we prevent you from do
ing today?”
We finally know Big Brother’s name. It is
Bill Gates.
Tom Trottier
Ottowa, Canada
Drinking milk is irresponsible
Guest commentary
Two years ago, PETAgot a rise out of every
one from dairy farmers to Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD) with its tongue-in
cheek advisory to college kids that, ounce for
ounce, beer packs more nutrition than milk.
Now, a new Harvard study has topped off
the debate with damning words about dairy
products and a raised-glass salute to beer. The
debate is about to spill over onto school cam
puses once again.
When PETA pulled its “Got Beer?” cam
paign because of public outcry, the uproar
from college students was deafening. Most felt
that PETA was caving in to members of the old
er generation who doubted the students’ abili
ty to understand the message behind the stunt.
There is much scientific evidence mount
ing that beer has health benefits previously
unrecognized and dairy foods are being impli
cated in illnesses ranging from diabetes to can
cer. rt, 1A will revive the campaign with an ad
vertisement in campus papers, as well as with
“Got Beer?” bottle openers and beer cozies,
which it will distribute through its College Ac
tion Campaign.
Unlike beer drinking, dairy consumption
also hurts animals. Dairy cows are artificially
impregnated—not a comfortable experience
—and have their calves tom from them with
in days of birth, causing acute distress for both
mother and calf, so that the milk they need
can be sold in the supermarket. Many male
calves are crammed into tiny veal crates, a
type of confinement so cmel that it has been
banned in the United Kingdom.
“Beer in moderation is good for you, while
even one glass of milk supports animal abuse
and harms your health,” PETA vegan out
reach director Bruce Friedrich said. “The fact
is that you can drink beer responsibly. The
same can’t be said of milk. ”
Curtis Taylor is a sophomore attending high
school in Eugene.
Where’s the
dissent for
war on Iraq ?
SAN ANTONIO (U-WIRE) — It was a well
mannered suburban cocktail party, the kind
where people make nice-nice and discussions
usually center on the latest “Sopranos”
episode or the high price of college tuition
these days.
One gentleman, however — a college pro
fessor — happened to be wearing a bright yel
low sticker on his shirt pocket. It read “No
War With Iraq.” It wasn’t long before another
gentleman sidled over to him and comment
ed on the sticker. Not, shall we say, glowingly.
Before long, the two were trading back-and
forth opinions about whether the United
States should bomb Iraq (one pro, the other
decidedly con) and the tension got tight.
Faces got a tad red. It was like watching one
of those Sunday morning news shows.
I decided to go check out the munchies in
the den.
As a latter-end baby boomer, I was bom too
late for the cultural tumult of the ‘60s — my
generation got disco instead, what a rip-off —
but that night I felt something vaguely famil
iar, even nostalgic: American citizens caring
enough to get involved in public debates. Even
heated ones. It was, I must admit, a bit
thrilling. Gould this be the ‘60s all over again?
As Congress is basically rubber-stamping
President Bush’s desire to attack Iraq last
week, it looks like our country will be
whistling bombs-over-Baghdad soon. But a
Vietnamesque murkiness surrounds the issue,
as reflected in a recent poll that found public
support for military action has cooled slightly
in the last two weeks.
Sure, Bush still has majority support for go
ing medieval on Saddam — especially in con
servative states such as Texas. But even here,
not everyone is jumping on the let’s-bomb
Iraq bandwagon. And this is surely making for
some interesting debates around the water
cooler, the kid’s soccer game, the dinner table,
the bar.
According to a waitress at Espuma, a trendy
coffee shop here, nary a public fight has bro
ken out over the espresso. “But the other day,
someone did come in and put peace signs all
over our bulletin board.” At the Esquire, a
downtown destination for stalwart drinkers, a
bartender says lively argument has erupted
along the famous bar. “Usually it’s all the older
veterans who say we should go to war,” he
says. “The younger crowd doesn’t really give
a crap.”
A friend tells me he was at a restaurant re
cently and one male patron who had overim
bibed started loudly proclaiming his disdain
for Bush’s war stance. (Perhaps it takes a buzz
to get folks to speak out in these parts.) But all
politics is local, as they say: Word has it the
war/anti-war debate has even seeped into
neighborhoods. Ann Ivone, an executive sec
retary at a local nonprofit group, says she has
found herself in verbal skirmishes with a
neighbor, an ex-Air Force man.
“This thing with Iraq started and he was all
gung-ho about going to war,” she says. “And
then we started to discuss it, to really take a
look at what proof there is (Hussein) has real
ly done anything. And my neighbor said,
‘Gome to think of it, there is no proof. Nobody
has really made a case of why we should at
tack.’ What we’re looking at here is a smoke
screen for the economy, some deal with oil.
My neighbor has totally turned around.”
Ivone says she believes it’s her right as an
American to voice her dissent. (“We’re not
part of a totalitarian government — yet.”) I
wonder how many people feel that way?
Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje writes for Hearst
Newspapers. Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.