Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 27, 2005)
| Commentary | ■ Guest commentary ROTC cadets are students, not robots You’ve probably seen them around campus. They look like col lege students, they talk like college students, they eat like college stu dents, but something makes them different from most students at the University. So who are these people and what makes them different? They’re Army ROTC cadets — and I happen to be one of them. Being associated with the mili tary and attending a historically lib eral campus can certainly be excit ing at times. Sure, we get our share of harassment from the anti-war demonstrators and liberal “extrem ists,” but for the most part, every one on campus supports, or at the very least will tolerate us. But some thing happened today that .com pelled me to write this commentary in hopes of breaking apart the stereotypes so often associated with military personnel. As 1 was preparing to sit down be fore the start of my geology class, I no ticed a young woman who was seated in the row behind my seat. She was looking at me with an expression of something far from friendly, so 1 in quired, “Why the stare?” “Your uniform makes me uncom fortable,” she replied. I insisted 1 wasn’t going to bite, but was unable to convince her I wasn’t the angry, stone-faced war-monger she per ceived me to be. Realizing she was steadfast in her stereotype-driven opinion of me, I found a seat far from hers so I wouldn’t make her uncomfortable. During class I couldn’t help but think how much different the entire scenario would have been had I been wearing “regular” clothes. I’m sure she wouldn’t have had a problem with me then. But perhaps because I’m proud to wear a U.S. Army uni form, she assumed I support war, worship President Bush and can’t wait to get a piece of an Iraqi insur gent. After all, everyone in the mili tary is like this, right? Wrong. Somebody once said to never judge a book by its cover. However, each time my fellow ROTC cadets and I wear the uniform, we become the book that everyone likes to judge. While I certainly cannot speak for all cadets at the Universi ty, 1 can safely say there are those among our ranks who oppose the war in Iraq, vote for Democrats and want nothing more than to serve our great country in a time of peace. In fact, many cadets will leave the University to become engineers and help rebuild Iraq’s infrastruc ture, pilots who fly supplies to countries in need during times of disaster, civil affairs specialists who work to build bridges between Americans and Iraqis, or doctors working in field hospitals treating civilians and soldiers alike. So before rushing to judgment on a person in uniform, consider that while cadets are united in our uni form and our devotion to the Army and the desire to defend and serve the people of the United States, we are students too, with our own in dependent beliefs, political views and thoughts. Get to know us — we won’t bite. Pe.ulSh.erwm is<a>journalism major < . . ■ Guest commentary Spreading freedom has its limits: U.S. doesn't know where Within 72 hours of President Bush’s election victory, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, published an article in the Wall Street Journal that has been dubbed “the neo-con wish list” by the left. This article can be interpreted as the first quasi-official foreign policy statement by the Bush Administra tion. The article — which was in credibly shameless in its back-slap ping cronyism and antagonism toward political bodies located in virtually every region of the world, including U.S. Democrats — called for a series of actions to be taken in order to spread “freedom” all over the world. The second item on the list was “Regime change — one way or an other — in Iran and North Korea, the only hope for preventing these re maining Axis of Evil states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions.” This statement, in tan dem with our President’s recent in augural address (which stressed the need to spread freedom to every part of the world), seems to be leading up to military action. Seeing as we are engaged in regime change with Iran’s two neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, it is logical to assume that war with Iran will come before war with North Ko rea. The war with Iran may not take the same form as the all-out military confrontation we are engaged in with the other two countries, but it looks as though regime change will occur, as Gaffney so eloquently stat ed, “one way or another. ” The question remains: Is con frontation with Iran a good idea? The two reasons that Gaffney gave for regime change in Iran (which he classified as an Islamo-fascist ene my) were Iran’s terrorist and nuclear ambitions. The Bush Administration must consider the consequences of confrontation with Iran balanced against the possible advantages. Is it a good idea to go into Iran while we are fighting two other wars right next door? Would we be run ning the risk of over-extension, thereby falling victim to the same fate as the British before us? Do we have the resources to wage such a campaign quickly and effectively? If Iraq is any indication of our military prowess I would suggest that the an swer is no. Would confrontation with Iran encourage or discourage Iranian based terrorists? Would American intervention in Iran motivate anti American soldiers to wage attacks once we intervene in their country? Is it possible to wipe out guerilla based terrorism by military means? Or would the U.S. presence galva nize support for terrorist groups un der the guise of fighting for Iranian freedom from neo-colonialism? Is it possible to win the peace with the Iranians after the war? Again, if Iraq is any indication, I would suggest that the answer is no. Another question is what is the actual danger posed by the Iranian nuclear program. One of the main reasons for entering Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMDs, which he was going to pass on to terrorists. If Iran has nuclear weapons, would they pass them on to terrorists? This ques tion is very difficult to answer. Iran is definitely hostile toward Ameri ca (and vice-versa). Yet, no regime in the history of the world has passed nuclear weapons to a non state entity. If you are Iran, what happens if you give Islamic extremists nuclear weapons to attack the U.S. and they decide they’d rather take control of Tehran? What if these would-be ter rorists are really an American CIA operation designed to lure you into a trap? I cannot imagine that Iran (or any other country) would ever give weapons to a terrorist; but the question remains, would Iran use their nuclear weapons against the U.S. even if they were unprovoked? We must remember that our country is preaching the benefits of offensive doctrines and preemptive strikes — not Iran. Our country is also the only country in the history of the world to drop a nuclear bomb (let alone two), though I cannot claim that we were unprovoked. I have to believe the Iranians under stand that using a nuclear weapon against the United States would be tantamount to national suicide. The Japanese bombed a U.S. military base in the Pacific and we killed hundreds of thousands of their civilians. Since the times of TVuman and Eisenhower, our military has been committed to the concept of massive retaliation. Would Iran re ally be stupid enough to nuke us? It is imperative that our nation considers these questions before the time comes to give the final answer. We cannot afford another Iraqi quagmire. It is essential that we do not give in to knee-jerk re actions fed by fear and propagan da. More than one thousand Americans have died in Iraq to date, and there were no WMDs nor plausible dangers to our secu rity. If we attack another nation that did not present an authentic danger to our security, the world will not be sympathetic to us if that nation retaliates. While pre emptive strikes are ideal militarily, they do not enjoy favor among the international community. If we launch another preemptive cam paign we must make sure it is worth the political risks and po tential loss of life on both sides of the battle. We cannot justify at tacking non-belligerents under the banner of “spreading freedom” for much longer. Jeremy Berrington is a freelance columnist for the Daily Emerald STUDENT GROUPS Advertise in the Emerald. Call 346-3712 to speak with a rep. We have great University rates. IIINTf i/imr IGECL01I ini* imJ nn i IIIU i NTI1 new frs an QNnorun / // iui\ mu SE" LL* n CO i ime iin i QncTTC CU1 CCP ICR irD ic*1. luiOuiLLniiu it. jli.OO i.ijii 5Ey£t TOE-»3E«L^-r The University of Oregon School of Law's Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation invites you to attend Environmental Justice in Oregon's Water Quality Standards: Considering Fish Consumption Rates When Setting Toxic Criteria Thursday, January 27, 2005 4 pm Panel Presentation & Discussion Free to the public » X*■ »--x> stf SWJsSsSS ■ v svx ■.<••.«■ <• 's V ^ S 89* s® \ UO School of Law *1515 Agate Street Room 110 (541)346-3891 ^(sJ/ct' S^budewt Chetklis-t Study -for -test 5^ Do laundry □ u pi7.7A And a brew/ Introducing... Ambrosia's Wednesday Night Student Special An authentic wood-fired pizza with choice of one topping, and your choice of beer or soft drink - $9.95! Atf+^;%A 541.342.4141 • 174 E Broadway • www.ambrosiarestaurant.com Does not apply to “to-go* orders, student ID required, other restrictions apply. is a debit c |your Cam|
