| 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|