vol_5_no_2 by Michigan Review

...

t:a

\C 00 0\

.,....=-

0 ~ IS

.,=-

-.-.

~ z

= :;

....

" ' "1 '

= t:I:t

t-3

--=- ..~ .

. ' .

'I :f.

October. 1986 page 2 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ...................... .... ...... .... . .... ...................... .... ............ . .......................... " ." ....

irrprnt's QrootlJ

September 27 was "No Crime Day" in Detroit. It is not known whether Mayor Young went to his office.

** The Mayor and City Council President Erma Henderson recently took a trip to South Africa. Crimeplagued and drug-infested Detroit took a breather.

George Bums has signed a five-year contract. Always look on the bright side of life.

** The 1986 edition of Festifall was a solid success. Festifall ,is an opportunity for student o~ations to Set up tables on the Ditig, distribute information, and solicit support. Aside from the loud music across the sidewalk. the Review had a great dtal of success and would like to thank all those who offered support . .

*,* It is appalling that so few students know the words to their own alma mater (except the chorus ofHaaaiilll!). As a public service to the university, here are the words to the first verse of The Yellow and Blue.

** Representative Johd Conyers, ,that esteemed Detroit m04etate, has repeatedly attacked Republican gubernatorial nominee Bill Lucas. Conyers has enhanced his reputation as one of Michigan's most astute political commentators with the following gems: "The president of the United States is coming to Detroit to put his arms around this Uncle Tom", "I want to tell you that biologically he is black, but he is not black in the spirit of Martin .Luther King or the civil rights movement", and Conyers' memorable comparison of Lucas to "those Jews" who sent their brothers and sisters "to the gas chambers". As others have noted, Conyers has formed his own Rainbow Coalition of people whom he has offended with his . bucolic statements.

** Former Michigan Voice editor Michael Moore was recently fired as editor of Mother Jones. Seems that Moore refused to print an article critical of the Sandinista government, an action which upset long-time Mother Jones associates. It's nice to ' stand up for your principles, even if it means obscuring the truth. The least he could have done was run a picture of Ava Gardner instead.

** The NFL's instant replay system, long tou~ed by sportswriters as a solution to the problem of bad calls, seems to be this year~s great white elephant. Calls have been overturned rarely, the rules are too easy to abuse, and the whole system was based on a couple of past incidents (hard cases make bad law). People are human and so are the people interpreting the films (they would still be arguing about Michigan and Notre Dame, since the replays were indecisive).

THE YELLOW AND BLUE Sing to the colors that float in the light; Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue! ,Yellow the stars as they ride thro' the night And reel in a rollicking crew; Yellow the fields where ripens the grain, And YeHow the moon on the harvest wain; Hail' Hail to the colors that float in the light; Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue!

".";""**** The Athletic Department's new football ticket policy has gone into effect without too many logistical difficulties. Students receive a "booklet" with the six home game tickets attached to a "seating card" which lists the student's seat. This makes it much more difficult to scalp tickets, as students must bring the entire packet to each game. This will supposedly solve the problem of non-students sitting in the student section, the problem of rowdiness in the stands, and the OPEC crisis, if you believe the Athletic Department. The ticket policy is a poor and unfair solution to seating problems. We should note first off that the policy singles out students, not other season ticket holders. If there is a problem with people re-selling tickets, then the solution should be applied equally to all ticket holders. The Athletic Department seems to forget that the football team is composed of students and is strongly supported by the student body. If anybody deserves a break (and we do not mean cheaper game ticket prices), it is the students who pay thousands a year to attend this University. Students also tend to have friends on other campuses (such as Michigan

State) who will come to the games. In the past, students would buy tickets for their friends from MSU. This is now much more difficult as the supply dries up. Ironically, this will cause a great increase in the price of scalped tickets, which does little to solve the problems identified by Don Canham, Al Renfrew, and company.

During the recent upstate flooding, Greenpeace members posted signs near Dow Chemical's plant on the Tittabawassee 'River in Midland, warning people not to touch the water due to pollution. However, the river was so wide that people had to travel quite a way into the flood to read the signs. "If you can read this, you're going to die"

** What do the University of Michigan and Bryn Mawr College have in common? If you guessed flourishing Women's Studies programs, you are sort of right Actually, Bryn Mawr is the home of the girlfriends of Publisher David Vogel, Editor Seth Klukoff, and MSA rep Rob McMahon, Ok, we know that this item is not . newswortby,buf "we're"coinCidence":': mongers nonetheless.

NOVEMBER, 1984

Also, we should note that simply taking a season ticket packet to every home game carries its risks: The tickets can become detached, mutilated, or simply fall out of pockets. Lose your seating card? Sorry, your tickets are now worthless.

The Ticket Office believes that all of this will solve the problem of overcrowding and people sitting in the wrong seats. They could have solved the problem more easily by allowing general admission by section. That way, the people (generally alumni) who show up 20 minutes after kickoff Former astronaut , senatorial and demand their exact seat may candidate, and Michigan Review choose from the few empty seats left cover boy Jack Lousma was the inst~ad . of hassling already overGrand Marshal of the 1986 U-M crowded Michigan fans. The new Homecoming parade. We sent an tickef system solves a few symptoms, artist to the scene to make sure, but he creates new problems, and is in gen- ; (,()lIldn't recognize LOllsma based on eral disfavor wi th the student body, our cover drawing,

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

page 3

October, 1986

.......................................................................................................................................................

TIlE MlCHlG, .

REVIEW Publisher David A. Vogel Associate Publishers David Katz Joseph M. McCollum Editor-in-Chief Seth B. Klukoff Executive Editors Stepe Angelotti Paul Seltman Advertising Director Sharlene Prais Personnel Managers Peter C. Cubba Charles D. Lipsig Ticket Salesman of the Month Don Canham Staff Patrick Batcheller Lori Nienhuis Craig Brown David Norquist Debbie Buchholtz Paddi O'Halloran Mark Powell C. Brandon Crocker Daniel Drumm Donna Prince Rick Dyer William Rice Laura Feldman Gloria Sanak Steve George Debbie Schlussel Leonard Greenberger Melanie Simon Asha Gunabalan Graham Smith Samara Heywara Joe Typha Fred Kelloway Dan Van Leer Scott Wade Gcor$C Kokkines BriollLn);' . '\ii"&~"., ".J(i!'$.ill{a; ..W1P4 James Lin HONORARY ADVISORY BOARD: C. William Colburn, Paul McCracken, Stephen Tonsor SUPPORTERS: Gerald R. Ford, R. Emmell Tyrrell, Jr., Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, William F. Buckley. Jr., Edwin Feulner ir..

The Michigan Review welcomes, appreciates, pleads for letters from our fans, admirers, adversaries (at your own risk, of course), and groupies. If you want to see your letter on these pages (page 9, actually), please temper your writing to no more t,",n two dOJlble-spoced, type-written pages. Also, let us know your name, where you live and your phone number, But your response is not only limited to a letter. You may also submit an article. All work will be reviewed by our impeccable editorial staff and considered in light ofstructure and content. Articles can be sent to our spacious, modern corporate office in the Michigan League. Well, actually, here is the mailing address: THE MICHIGAN REVIEW Suite Olle 911 Nort" Ullj,enity Ann Arbor, MI 48109 The Michigan Review is an independent, student-run journal at the University of Michigan. This means that no one controls us. We are in no way, shape, or form representative of the policies of the Administration and accept no dough ,from the University. Typesetting is provided by Trade Graphics, Inc. Our printers are Observer and Eccentric (But not in that order). COPJ'righl 1986

111rom lQe iEbilor

eyon Poli The Reagan administration, it can be argued, is the first ever to have

spawned a "genre" of newspapersnamely the bevy of campus conservative journals that have appeared at schools across the country, including Tom Hayden's alma mater. The onrush began with the Dartmouth Review earlier this decade and led to a series of clones at most major institutions. The early journals were indistinguishable from one another. They all espoused the Reagan administration line on most issues and assumed the void of radicalism on the right half of the political continuum. The journals were largely criticized as collegiate copies of National Review , yet devoid of that magazine's thought, and as right-wing mimics of the Sixties counterculture rags. The criticism came mostly from those who could not accept the spread of Reagan's conservatism to the colJegecampus and thus was dismissed as natural by proponents of the journals. The conservative establishment argued that the journals were only in their incipience and would need time to mature into credible journalistic entities. So a New York foundation, the Institute for Educational Affairs (lEA), established a student journalism program to improve the editorial quality and financial stability of the journals. Since this program was founded, conservative journals have been started on campuses throughout the country. Of course, there have been failures, but most of the journals established through the student journalism program are still around. Yet, have these papers actually matured? Unfortunately, only some have. The early criticism of these efforts was valid and must be taken seriously by every campus conservative journal in the country. The criticism can be taken one step further, with the question: are the journals actually journalistic pursuits or merely political organs that exist to parrot the Republican Party platform? Now lEA must not be blamed for the lack of progress that the journals have made. If it were not for the foundation's journalism program, few if any journals would exist today. lEA has advised every journal in its program on how to increase their relevancy and not be solely political organs. Yet, lEA can only advise and cannot make decisions for the jour-

â&#x20AC;˘

ICS

nals. Thus, each is responsible for their own survival. So what must conservative journals do to survive? We must adopt a long-term strategy. This can be accomplished by broadening our reading audience. When originally established, the journals aimed to appeal only to their conservative friends and sympathizers and were locked in an ideological sliver of their campus communities. This philosophy, unfortunately, has remained. Clearly, broadening the readership is beneficial. There are several components to this strategy. First, we must become more intellectual, dealing with ideas rather than pure facts. Too many journals have become "platformized," a a term I have developed to categorize articles that only restate the Republican position on an issue. An article espousing US aid to the contras should also 4iscuss the merits of such aid, what the goals of the aid should be, and why we should even consider aiding the contras. Perhaps the author could even suggest his or her own ideas on how to achieve democracy in Nicaragua, or does conservatism only entail supporting President Reagan's policy proposals? We must not be locked into espousing one monolithic view on an issue, but should explore alternative solutions that may also be classified as conservative. Such an approach will reveal that we are thinking about solutions to various issues rather than merely repeating what has already been said. Second, our articles must be wellargued and well-thought out rather than excercises in propaganda. Good writing will attract readers to the journals, even those who may disagree with our political stance. Thus, thought and reasoned argument can bring respect on campus for our efforts. Third, we should remember that we are college conservative journals. We should therefore refrain from being quasi-National Reviews and focus our attention on our own environment, namely our respective campuses, Articles on campus events and issues will interest every student and should be properly mixed with articles on SDI orAngola, Each journal should be , tailored to its respective campus and i reflect that campus' own diversity. This is clearly preferable to 100 clones of national conservative magazines.

Moreover, we should discuss campus issues as they affect us as students. For example, it is fashionable for conservatives to support Gramm-Rudman because it will cut government spending and not bring an increase in taxes. But should we, as students, support this measure just because other conservatives support it? As students, we should oppose Gramm-Rudman because it will severely cut financial aid and even curtail our chances of working in Washington, if we choose that option. Tlterefore, we will have greater relevance on campus iLwe focus on campus issues and approach these issues as students rather than as ideologues. Finally, we should move beyond politics. Of course, this does not mean deleting the political content of our journals. Rather, we should incorporate a culture section, which will bring readers to the journal who are not solely interested in politics, Features such as book, movie, concert and record reviews will help conservative journals erase the image of being political organs devoid of personality and concern for the tastes of the student body as a whole. The previous suggestions should be considered by every existing conservative journal. Some of my advice may overlap lEA's, which only strengthens the importance of these suggestions, If we are to remain as vital contributors to the lively discussion of ideas on our nation's campuses, we must act to improve immediately.

~l1M"" ______________

"" Seth B. Klukoff is a Junior in Political Science and Editor-in-Chief of the Review

.......... . ~ .. ~.' .... ~~ •. _ ••• " ''''''' '

c. " .. _

_ _

. .... ~ _ •• ,.

·'I."""~

_"•.",.' " ••• •• n" ...

October, 1986

page 4 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

....... ........ ...... ....... ...... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ... ........ ....... .... .... ... .. .. .. ....... ... ... .. .... ....... ........ .... ...... .... ... .... ....... .... .. ... .... ... ...........

~renada:

A Retrospective

by Mark Powell out of touch. Taking simultaneous advantage of this fact and of general American weakness at the time, the Marxist New Jewel Movement, which was aligned with the Soviet Union and Cuba and led by Maurice Bishop, struck a coup in 1979 at approximately the same time as the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua. It took less than three days for the first ship to arrive from Cuba crammed with Soviet arms for the tiny island, which is perfectly situated both for fomenting violence and terror in the Caribbean Basin and for

Most noteworthy among these documents were a 1980 treaty with the Soviet Union allowing use of the island as a base and landing point for the Soviet strategic reconnaissance aircraft which routinely probe the east coast of the U.S. as well as the region in general; a 1982 treaty with the Soviet Union to install sophisticated Soviet satellite communications equipment on the island; and another 1982 treaty with Nicaragua and Vietnam for the training of Grenadian soldiers. We had virtually no knowledge of these affairs as a result of the

radically Marxist faction withil Bishop's party, led by Bernard CoaTI and Gen. Hudson Austin, was makin plans to take power. With the war il EI Salvador at its peak and the tragi Boland Amendment of 1982 restricl ing our actions in the area, it seemed safe bet that America would not reae with more than rhetoric. On October 13th they struck thei coup, imprisoning Bishop. On th 17th the U.S. machinery for plannin a response was set in motion, with meeting of the Restricted InterAgenc Group led by Assistant Secretary c State Langhorne Motley. On Wed nesday the 19th, a protesting crow America had accomplished the noblest of missions liberated Bishop and carried him to quickly and; effectively. However, a close look at the SQuare in S1. George's, the capital. Th new regime responded by moving in military ac<ion reveals some disturbing signs of the Soviet armored personnel carrie decade ofneglect, abuse, and accumulated ring rust that (APC) equipped with anti-aircra: our forces had carried into battle. artillery (AAA) and opening fire 0 the crowd with this heavy weapor serving as a refueling spot: Grenada is Carter Administration's gutting of killing at least 150, Bishop and a associate were taken into a fort an a quarter of the way along the route U.S. intelligence-gathering activities executed. A 24-hour" curfew wa between Castro and his 40,000 troops in the region; all our assets on the imposed; violators were killed. N propping up the communist regime in island had been liquidated, and at ',.' .... " tb~ ".Cubanan~ O~enadia~ , c9IIl~ .' Apgola. J he island also ~me. ap.,.Qul ." . J~t . o~Ameq.can., agent was killed , Americans. it was..annQunced, woul .. . ' munist oppositiOli . These ' . VOices of the way meeting place; less 'visible trying to reinfiltrate. be 'allowed to l~a~ethlisian(i . charged that we had essentially than Havana, for communist/guerilla Satellite photos, however, had dePlanning for a military rescue mi: stumbled to victory on Grenada and forces to plan their offensives in the tected the two-mile airstrip the sion began in earnest the next da~ that, even though the mission clearly region. Ignoring Governor-General Cubans were building at Point Sali- Thursday, with a meeting of the Cris: served the ends of democracy, we Scoon, Bishop initiated a series of nes- which they claimed was to be Pre-Planning Group, led by R~ were unjustified in launching the secret treaties with the Soviet Union, used for tourism- as well as the general Admiral 'John Poindexter, laying tb operation when and how we did. With Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and North buildup of arms on the island. Thus, the passage of almost three years since Korea. These documents, captured in a March 1983 speech President see page 10 the operation, in which the results for during the fighting along with wareReagan warned that America would the island, the region, and the .u.S. houses full of modern Soviet weaneither allow the island to be used to military have manifested themselves, pons, silenced even those who inexspread violence and terror nor allow Mark Powell is a Junior in Russia it is a good time for a retrospective plicably chose to question the reality the approximately 1000 American and East European Studies and a staJ review, a comprehensive look back at of the Bishop regime's threat to the cltIzens on the island to be held writter for the Review. Operation Urgent Fury and the cir- region. hostage. Meanwhile, an even more cumstances surrounding it. Then, looking at events since the operation, (J0JlRS£ fT7 A. stms5! we may draw conclusions on the 25~JtI) HOot£ degree of success of the mission on W6~"YET. several levels. Grenada is an island at the southern end of the Lesser Antilles, approximately 80 miles off the coast of Venezuela. It is roughly 20 miles long by 12 miles wide and quite beautiful, with beaches of black and white sand and a lush, mountainous interior. Like most of its neighbors, Grenada was a British colony from about the time of the American Revolution, achieving independence in 1974 under the leadership of Sir Eric Gairy, a staunch anti-communist. Sir Paul Scoon, a British official with the title of Governor-General, remained to represent the interests of the Crown , For a time the island prospered in its new freedom, However, there was some public sentiment that Gairy was an eccentric and, by 1979, had grown 30 October 1983. 8 1/2 years to the day after the last U.S. helicopter left our embassy roof in Saigon, a foreign people freed from communist terror and tyranny by American GIs poured their gratitude upon their liberators in the streets and fields of Grenada. The nation watched on television as the 700 American medical students who had been rescued from the island during the fighting ran down the steps of military transports and, crying tears of joy, kissed American soil. It was a dramatic end to a decade of death for freedom and justice around the world, and a heartening demonstration of America's renewed resolve and ability to protect its interests abroad and use power effectively for the cause of good. Yet in the aftermath, even as democracy was being restored to the island, there were those who said that the operation had been bungled militarily, with U.S. forces accomplishing their mission in spite of alleged blunders only because they were deployed in vastly superior numbers and with vastly superior firepower over

October, 1986

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 5

................................................................................................................................................................................................

~tuitw ~orum

Balance of Terror by David Vogel Consider George Quester's remark carefully: "A spread of nuclear weapons might result in the spread ofthe zone of peace." The issue is nuclear proliferation-the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nonnuclear states. Currently five nations in the world stockpile nuclear weapons (the U.S., the U.S.S.R., Great Britian, France, and the People's Republic of China) and one nation, India, exploded a bomb in 1974 but does not have any nuclear

Cohen of Clark University: "Just as detente was the logical outcome of the - balance of nuclear terror for the great powers . . . the spread of nuclear weapons and consequently the spread of a balance of terror may . . . extend among the second order nations by reducing conventional warfare options." This is not an absolute statement, however. Certainly, for proliferation to be advantageous, it would need to be symmetrical (where adversaries in a region all

Most diplomats and international leaders, as well as many scholars and researchers, take proliferation to be an "evil" without further debate. inventory. Several other nations, like Israel and Pakistan, may have nuclear capability but have not admitted so. Many other nations are attempting to develop the technology ("proliferate"), such as Brazil and Argentina. Almost everyone would probably > q ree>that such proliferation is not desirable; indeed, the U .S. arid v U.S.S.R. actively discourage attempts by any nation to build their own "bomb". But is that necessarily the best policy? A large and growing section of political science ancl. international experts would disagree. As Lewis Dunn (author of Controlling the Bomb, widely recognized as the definitive work on proliferation) wrote, "A number of analysts and observers, noting that predictions at dawn of the nuclear age of a nuclear apocalypse have proved exaggerated, argue that there is little reason to fear the consequences of the further spread of nuclear weapons." In many circles, proliferation is an intensely debated subject. However, it would appear that this debate has not moved into the political world. Most diplomats and international leaders, as well as many scholars and researchers, take proliferation to be an "evil" without further debate. As Professor Miclael Intrilligator of UCLA explains, "Most of these studies assume implicitly or explicitly that nuclear proliferation is potentially destabilizing or otherwise undesirable without critically analyzing that assumption." Thus, it would be prudent to study the pro-proliferation argument before immediately dismissing proliferation as undesirable. The defense of proliferation revolves around deterrence: that when more nations build atomic weapons, the chances of any wars breaking out will diminish. Michael Mandelbaum of Harvard argues that, "A series of regional nuclear balances similar to the one that has forced the two superpowers to compose and restrain their differences in order to avoid catastrophe could conceivably emerge in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, or in Latin America." This spirit is echoed by Saul

proliferate in tl1e same time frame). The Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR) explains: "Whenever an asymmetry in nuclear war-making potential exists, the risk of war or blackmail is high. Whenever that asymmetry is removed-most feasibly by seJf-inteJ'est~~ . prQlife~tioD7~t: >pJ'Q~

peets of peace are enhanced.'" ' " ,> The logic is easy to understand. If, for example, Israel has a nuclear weapon, Syria would be much less likely to invade. If Syria also had a "bomb", Israel would be constrained. This symmetrical effect enforces a nuclear "peace" over the region, as Intrilligator continues: "As additional nations acquire nuclear weapons there is even greater uncertainty over the reactions of other nuclear powers to the initiation of

a nuclear war, further reinforcing the peaceful stability. The probability of a deliberate initiation of war decreases as the acquisition of nuclear weapons (in a region) restrains the existing nuclear options." There is another type of deterrence that nuclear weapons provide: protection from the superpowers. Would the U.S. invade Nicaragua if the Sandinistas had nuclear capabilities? Lewis Dunn delineates: "Nonetheless, observers have contended that more widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons would preclude future superpower intervention against lesser powers. These observt;rs see nuclear weapons as 'great equilizets', permitting their possessors to deter attack and withstand superpower threats and blandishments." These arguments are supported by historical precedent. Although there is great fear in Europe of a nuclear war, even the harshest critics of nuclear weapons must admit that Europe has seen the most peaceful 40 years of its entire history. 'Mandelbltum contends that "since 1950 Europe has been relatively tranquil, largely because of the feared connection between political upheaval and nuclear weapons. European history since 1945 has not been frozen, but its course has been steadied by nuclear weapons, and it has been peaceful." Another example is the Southwest Asian subcontinent. Before 1974, Pakistan and India had fought 3 bitter wars. Since then, when India deto-

nated a nuclear device, Pakistan has barked at but has never attempted to bite India. Some scholars argue that the Middle East would benefit the most from proliferation. Arab scholar Fuad Jabbar contends that, "Where conventional power has failed, weapons of mass destruction would be expected to succeed in convincing Arab populations first and their governments second of the futility of continuing their confrontation with Israel. With the realization that Israel cannot be militarily defeated, the rationale behind the permanent state of war, the economic blockade, and the policy of non-acceptance and non-recognition m~t be expected to break down." History supports this. Many were surprised that Israel was not invaded in the 1973 War. One reason, cited by Western authorities, is that the Arabs feared that Israel had a "bomb"-and to this day they still fear it! Surprisingly, there is another unreh1ted benefit that nuclear proliferation could provide: the narrowing of the "North/South" economic gap. David Gompert wrote that, "The diffusion of nuclear capabilities will, like the diffusion

see page 10 David Vogel is a Senior in Aerospace Engineering and Publisher of the Review.

Can the Foundations of LibertY Crack? Please support The Michisan Review.

After All. LibertY Entails ResPonsibilibl.

Please Make Contributions Payable to: The Michigan' Review, Suite One, 911 North University, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109.

.""- ,'..................

_ .........

--.-...._..

page 6 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

October. 1986

.................... .. ......... ... ..... .. .......... .................................................. .. ....... .. ... - ....... .. ..... .. ....... .. .................... ... .. ........ ......... .

iBooks in itcuicw

•

OrmlS

iteratur

by David Vogel THE PENTAGON AND THE ART OF WAR. By Edward N. Luttwak. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985. 330 pp. AMERICA CAN WIN: THE CASE FOR MILITARY REFORM. By Gary Hart, with William S. Lind. Bethesda, Md: Adler & Adler, 1986. 300 pp. The last two decades have seen a string of military debacles: in Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, even Grenada. As a result, many prominent politicians have called for drastic changes in our military, in its structure, equipment, and personnel. The " military reform" movement consists of liberal Democrats (Gary Hart) to conservative Republicans (Newt Gingrich, G. William Whitehurst), as well as many of this nation's forem ost military experts :';;

.......

. '\::··i"

", : ":'", '

Not surprisingly, many of Hart's ideas come from The Pentagon and the Art of War. Luttwak is much more problem-oriented; he spends most of his time discussing the superstructure of the military bureaucracy. Luttwak goes into lengthy detail on the past twenty years of military ~ailures, starting with an in-depth look at the problems that plagued us in Vietnam . He singles out the . "service-oriented" mindlessness in the military; that is, the need for every service branch to ;"get a piece of the action." . For example, h¢ notes how even a simple operation' like liberating a single Vietnamese town could produce major interservice bitterness. The Army could use infantrymen, or artillery, or armored (tank) divisions; the Air Force could bomb it with fighters or B-52s; the Navy could

4~7~~~ ",4-;

('( ~'

bomb it with planes, or with its gunships; indeed, the CIA and DIA could inflitrate it; the list goes on. This problem is still with us today. Why else did Reagan send planes all the way from Britian-around Spain-to bomb Libya when the Navy's carriers were entirely capable of handling the whole mission? Because the Air Force did not want the Navy to get all of attention from the raid. Luttwak also investigates several other areas. He too attacks the huge size of the officer corps and its bureaucracy. He makes a detailed study of the conventional power of the Soviet Union, a subject on which he is an expert. Finally, he calls for the abolition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Office of the Secretary of Defense, something Hart also suggests (but probably only reiterated from Luttwak). The most important theme in the two works is the military bureaucracy. Luttwak and Hart provide many figures to back up their claims. Apparently, little in the military gets done right (or at all) because of the size of the bureaucracy. After World War II, the military decided to retain a huge contingent of

',",

•

l(~\~1, 1:l-'\ t~~~~ \ \. ' , , \\{ .

Now, the military is left with more generals and admirals than they had in WWlI-even though the total size 0/ the military is only a fifth that in 19461 (Edward Luttwak, a conservative from Georgetown's Center for Strategic and International Studies, and William Lind, a former Senatorial assistant to Whitehurst and Hart). These two books form the published basis of the military reform movement. While they might be p0litical opposites, Hart and Luttwak describe virtually the same situation in similar fashion. Both agree that the one aspect of the military that does not need fixing is the patriotism and commitment of the enlisted troops and junior officers. But most everything else takes a beating, especially the military's oversized bureaucracy, poorly designed equipment, and unqualified commanders. America Can Win, Hart's description of the reform movement, military problems, and suggested solutions, is easy to read and logically very sound. Using layman's terms, Hart first criticizes the "superstructure" of the military: its equipment, strategy, training techniques. Then he explains why problems exist in the system; basically, the huge size of the bureaucracy. Finally, he offers some hope for reform, but concludes that reform will never come from within the military ,

.. ~

" ~ " f /"' ~" \ -\~--" ~'.'. '; ' , ,' ., :' ' ' 'f'.''R?-

....

...;:.. ,' ..... .

:,' ,! .•:/.'\1.

~:" ~"-"::":;'-

' 'i \\ 1

< , "

" ' '''

} .'

''lo "'-..

junior-level officers in case of another war. Thus, when troops were drafted en masse, there would already by officers available to command them. However, as these junior officers aged, they were promoted farther up the pay scale. Now, the military is left with more generals and admirals than they had in World War II-even though the total size of the military is only a fifth that in 1946! Another problem lies with the promotion system. An officer comes up for review for promotion three times; if he is not promoted by the third time, he is discharged. Naturally, the military rarely discharges officers; thus, they are left with many incompetent flag-rank officers. Hart recalls one of Peter's Principles, which states that "people are promoted to the level where they are inefficient." Essentially, the flag-rank officer corps (generals and admirals) is littered with bureaucrats: people who achieved their lofty stature by paperpushing and brownnosing. These people are not competent warriors; "they are only advanced secretaries. The bureaucracy is also incompetent at decision-making. Because of the military's size, and that fact that weak people tend to dominate the

high ranks, most decisions are made by committee. Furthermore, each commander tends to take on dozens of subordinates to do his work (for two reasons-he thus does not get criticized for bad decisions, and there is a huge surplus of junior officers who need employment). All of this adds up to paperwork and hot air. Because everyone is afraid of making a bad decision which would negatively influence their chances for promotion, the other option is selected-no decision. Hart, unlike Luttwak, goes into detail over the military's equipment. His major concern is the Navy's reliance on the huge aircraft carrier. He cites three problems with this strategy: -Carriers are very easy to take out of service, They need only 10 have their flight decks disabled; it is not necessary to sink them. Because of the see page II

David Vogel is a Senior in Aerospace Engineering and Publisher of the Review.

"~'." \V~","~~W~~·(.l;' ~"·'~(·'''-: \"':I1"'~"' ''':''"i'~'''' :.~ ..... ,',

'H.

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 7

October, 1986 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... " .......................................................... ..

*'*'**"*"*.****"**********~***** Itnftruitw *** . . . **************.*********** ••

Robert Dole country, to stop illegal drug production within our own borders, and to fully prosecute drug pushers. We also have a responSIbIlIty, 1 believe, to help states and local communities in education and treatment programs. The bottom line is still,"What does all this cost?" We don't yet know. But in an effort to move toward some positive action in dealing with the

This month, the Review interviews Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. Dole, first elected in 1968, was Gerald Ford's running mate in 1976. He became Senate Majority Leader in November 1984, after having served nearly four years as the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. His wife, Elizabeth, is the current Secretary of Transportation.

REVIEW: Continuous speculation abounds over your potential candidacy for President. What influence can you have on the ideas of the post-Reagan era? What is your vision of the country's future? DOLE: Obviously, as majority leader in the Senate, what I'm doing now is helping shape the national agenda as we prepare for the next century. Whether I continue in this leadersbipor move on ' up tQ somet.hins else' remains to beseeil:' But either way, I believe we'll be in a position to put forth new solutions to the challenges we face. My vision, as you put it, for the country is pretty much the same as Ronald Reagan's. We both want to see the best of America come throughthat we're a strong and respected nation around the world, that Americans have every opportunity to fulfill their dreams and that we continue to have peace and prosperity at home and abroad. I'm a commonsense conservative from Kansas. I've always been interested in th~ pragmatic approach to problems. On foreign policy, Richard Allen, who was President Reagan's first national security advisor, said I pursue alliance-centered diplomacy. On domestic issues, Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus says I have a coherent ideological approach. I have no quarrel with their descriptions. REVIEW: The extremely high rate of drug abuse has received the media attention it deserves. To what extent should the federal government become involved in cracking down on drug abuse? DOLE: I believe the federal government has a definite role. The challenge is to identify the properand effective-role. And what does it cost? How do we pay for it? First, our central role should be on law enforcement. This means a real effort to stop drug smUggling into the

',;,::

drug problem, I've suggested-and 1 believe we'll offer it as a Republican amendment to the Administration's proposed drug legislation-having a voluntary check-off on federal tax returns where taxpayers can contribute at least $5 toward paying the costs. REVIEW: The Supreme Court has decided in favor of numerical guidelines for black firefighters in Cleveland and for sheet metal workers in New York. Do you favor hiring quotas as a means of promoting equality in the job force? DOLE: I remain opposed to the use of court-mandated quotas as opposed' to affirmative action hiring and true promotion goals.

REVIEW: You have publicly criticized the Administration's policy of "constructive engagement" toward South Africa. How should the U.S. alter its policy toward South Africa? DOLE: American policy must convince the South African &overnment that we mean business-that our government and the people of the United States strongly object to the Botha government's policy of apartheid. The Senate Foreign Relations bill offers the right mix of actions to make American policy convincing. It is strong enough to be credible, lbut doesn't shoot ourselves in the foot. We don't want punitive sanctions, we want to provide a positive response to real liberalization of South Africa's policy. And it offers an escape clause; that is, if South Africa makes real changes in its policy, we can lay aside the stick and take up the carrot in future relations. REVIEW: The in~ creased incidence of terrorism against the U.S. will require rapid, at times covert, responses. Do you favor amending the War Powers Act to lessen the constraints on the President in his response to terrorist acts? OOLE: Yes. And I've introduced legislation (S.2335) in the Senate that would clarify the President's ability to respond to a terrorist act without being boxed in by the War Powers Act. That act was originally enacted in 1973, before terrorism was used as a form of aggression. Today, it is important that a President have all the tools possible for maximum flexibility in responding to this new type of warfare. I personally believe the President already has the authority to respond to terrorist attacks without being shackled by the War Powers Act. Others may disagree, however. I remember after our attack on Libya, in response to the bombing ofa West German disco where one of our citizens was killed, there were complaints-mostly by Democrats-that the President did not properly "consult" with the Congress. Well, the President did the right thing when it came to Kbadafy. And it's interesting that since we responded, Khadafy, as far as I know, hasn't struck back. And if he does, he'll pay the price - again.

-",,,- . . ,... -n.... ~-

'-'.>

October, 1986 page 8 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... " ........ " ........... " . ... " ............... " ............................... . ~

Drunk on Rules The new alcohol policy governing all dorms is one further display of the University's attempt to tighten its control over the individual student. The "no-keg" policy in Couzens last year may have set a precedent for the recent University action .. The policy prohibits either cases or kegs of beer from being brought into the dorms, in addition to prohibiting any alcohol from being possessed in the dorm by anyone who is under the age of twenty-one. Not only can one not drink alcohol in the halls as in previous years, but one can no longer drink with one's door open. An open door causes one's room to become a "public area," and drinking is prohibited in such areas. Moreover, resident staff members have the jurisdiction to confiscate alcohol from anyone who is either drinking in a public area or known to be under twenty-one. If a resident staff member suspects that a resident has a case or keg of beer in his or her room, the staff person may call security, who then in tum has the right to enter the room with or without the consent of the occupant. The first issue which must be considered is privacy, which is a guaranteed, inalienable right written in the Constitution. With the increase in security in the dorms, and with the priorities of resident staff members being forced to shift from advising to alcohol monitoring, the privacy of the individual student has been greatly reduced. The next step by the University might be to order mom and dad to be all dorm residents' roommates. Another and possibly more damaging consequenceoftbe new policy is the strain it has placed on the relationships between residents and

staff. Resident advisors have been compelled to spend more time worrying about how residents get alcohol into their rooms instead of worrying about the residents' academic and social problems. This has made it much harder for RA's to counsel residents effectively. Also. even though most students who live in the dorms understand that the RA's must enforce the rules which the University ordains. students can no longer feel completely comfortable when in the presence of an RA simply because of the advisors' governing power in the realm of alcohol. It is difficult for one to view someone, who ultimately has some control over oneself, as a trustworthy mentor. From an RA's point of view, the alcohol policy was a poor decision by the University. Most RA's do not condone restriction of residents' freedom, nor do they enjoy taking away alcoholic beverages from their residents. Additionally, one RA commented that she is "afraid to leave the room" and walk into the halls, for she knows that too often she will see residents with beers in their hands. A resident director expressed concern with the portion of the policy instructing residents to close their doors when drinking. He, like any other staff member, is more worried about looking for "problem" drinkers or drug users who may really need help, not someone who is just having a beer while watching a game on TV.With closed doors, the resident staff is inhibited from monitoring some real, life-threatening problems among the residents. With the implementation of the new alcohol policy in the dorms and a probable code of non-academic conduct on the way from the Unhrersity "Big Brother" Uof M continues to strengthen its grasp on the student body. . Il

Time for Reform Our military is not as good as it ought to be. It failed in Vietnam; botched the rescue of the Mayaguez (where 41 men dieclrescuing 40); lost 250 men in Lebanon because of an administrative oversight; lost equipment and 8 servicemen in a bungled rescue mission in the Iranian desert; took three days to conquer a vastly infeiior enemy in Grenada. The Pentagon spends 3 billion dollars for one aircraft carrier (not including billions more for one carrier's support ships) and 50 million dollars on one single attack plane (the A-6). The problem lies in the bureaucracy of the military. It has twice as many officers as it needs, researches projects to death until they are ten times as expensive as they should be, and still uses strategies left over from World War II (namely the "firepower/attrition" doctrine and amphibious invasion tactics, neither of which would help at all in any global conflict with the Soviet Union). The time for reform is here. Now. Reform is bipartisan; both Newt Gingrich and Gary Hart are ardent reformists. They do not suggest either cutting or raising the defense budget, nor do they argue that the military ought to be more efficient or less wasteful. They advocate that the military must be ejlective- at whatever cost. Reform means cutting the officer corps by at least 50 per cent. Reform means disbanding the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose recommendations have been ignored by every President under whom they have served, and replacing the JCS and Office of the Secretary of Defense with a "National Defense Staff', consisting of officers from all four services who are permanently assigned (removing any service-

oriented favoritism that currently exists in the JCS and OSD). Reform means operationally testing equipment-not under ultraclean conditions meant to make new equipment look desirable. Reform means better officer education-not in managerial skills and paperwork, but in strategy and tactics and military history. Reform means cancelling the F-14, F-15, F-18, A-6, and F-III programs; these planes are all too large and too expensive. Reform means designing new lightweight cheap fighters without all of the expensive, cumbmersome radar and ground-attack equipment (the F-16A is an excellent example of this). Reform means mothballing most of our 15 carrier battle groups. In war, they spend 75 per cent of their resources on defending themselves-not attacking the enemy as they should. We need to build our navy around the submarine, supplemented by dozens of small. quick aircraft carriers. Reform means bringing back the jeep, and cancelling the Bradley fighting coffin. Replace the M-16 gun; build a cheaper. all steel-andwood gun that will not jam like the M -16. There are hundreds of changes that need to be made. Some big, some small. But all necessary. We need to elect Congressmen (with ideas like Gingrich's and Hart's) that will fix the military over the Pentagon's many loud protests. We do not need to throw money into the wind as Reagan and Weinberger are doing. We need clear, decisive decisions from military strategists, not bureaucrats. ~

.'~'.'i-:>-" """. , ''' ' '' ~.\.,;,._ '

October, 1986

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 9

............................................. a

......... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . . .

~ .. .

............................................. ... ......

il.irttrrs To the Editors: Coalition/or Democracy in Larin America is a nonprofit group dedicated to supporting the legitimate aspirations of the people of Latin America to a/reely elected democracy. Our goal is to increase people's awareness about the events and realities in Latin America. We are a broadbased coalition of people who feel that liberties and rights can never be compromised for any reason. We do not wish to be classified into any political catagory or stuffed into an ideological niche; the concepts of/reedom and democracy should not be constrained by such artificial barriers. To put it further. this group is pro-democracy. We believe in a world that must ultimately have freedom for everyone. This includes f reedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembiy, freedom of the right to petition rhe gOl'ernment fo r a redress 0/ griel'ances, freedom of 1I'0rship, freedom of in/ormation, freedom ((f conscience, freedo m of the right to publish , fi'eedom of the right to trm'el, freedo m of the right to choose the country one wishes to live in, freedom /rom state supervision and comrol, iTeedom from indoctrination, and freedom of cil'illiberties; all of which would lead to peace and justice. We are a group that is not anybody's chapter or affiliate. We have no one to dictate to us our policies or our views, nor are we people who come up with all of the answers, Our rules are to research, to learn and to discuss matters amongst our members, and only to then try to share it with olhers. We share our views by writing letters to newspapers and Congressmen, Meetings are held every other Friday at 7pm in Rm 3909 of the Union. There will be a mass meeting on October 10. For more information, call Roberto at 764-961 I or Denis at 663-6798. President Roberto Javier Frisancho Vice President Denis Dolgachev

Note: The Review does not offiCially endors; the CDLA or any of its views. However. recognizing that on the issues of Latin America this campus is ralher one·sided. it is worthy of the readers of the Review to support groups such as the CDLA , which can be fresh alternatives to present circles iiscussing Central American a.U'airs.

C'nirerslty husiness student Brandon Crocker Il'rote a leiter ill response to a September 4 Daily editorial. A key paragraph in the letter was cut for no apparent reason, thus distorting the logic of Crocker's letter. In the interest of allowing a suppressed viewpoint to be heard, we now present Crocker'S cover letter to the editor of the Daily and his original letter (censored portion italicized).

Editor: Is the ANC so sacrosanct (and your ethics so low) that you even edit out any criticism of the ANC in letters to the editorry My letter printed September I I, and aptly titled by you" ANC vs. Contras" lost most of its meaning as you cut out all comments critical of the ANC and its activities. Such editing was not necessary for clarity or because the letter was lengthy (it was the shortest you've printed this academic year) and can only be attributed to censorship on yo ur part. Having brought this to your attention, professional ethics dictate that you print this letter as well as my original letter (attached) in their entirety al the earliest possible date, as well as take appropriate steps 10 insure that such a serious breach of your responsibilities does not happen again. Brandon Crocker

Editor: In your editorial "Supporting democracy abroad" (Sept. 4) you state that even though the Sandinistas in Nicaragua are repressive and not democratic we should not support the Contras because they are mostly former Somocistas and have "violated human rights on an often ghoulish scale." On the other hand, you say we should support the ANC in South Africa. The practice of South African revolutionaries associated with the ANC of bealing people accused of "supporling " the gOl'ernment. pUlling tires around Iheir necks. dousing them with gasoline and burning them alive, certainly qualifies as human rights violations on a ghoulish scale ill my book. But one important and telling dzU'erence hetween these atrocities (currellll)' al'eraging one a dar) and those purportedly conducted by Contra fo rces is that, unlike the Contra leadership. the communist dominated ANC leadership (illcluding Winni e ;\Jandela) hal'e endorsed these harbaric acts, Your charge that the Con tras are mostly Somocistas is unfounded and false . While editing a publication in California, I sent a reporter to the main Contra camp in northern Nicaragua. His report, which is corroborated by all other first hand reports I have seen, is that the Contras are mostly peasant farmers with an average age of abo ut 20 (making any association with Somoza's national guard impossible). Many of the key leaders of the Co ntras are former Sandinistas, The Contras in Nicaragua are more a force for democracy than is the ANC in South Africa. Brandon Crocker

~ ........................ .. ......... .

... .

••••••••• •

••

"Moral" Defense by Craig Brown On Thursday. September 11, The University of Michigan Students of Objectivism sponsored a speech by Peter Schwartz entitled "American Nuclear Arms, a Moral defense." Schwartz, a graduate of Syracuse University, is the editor of Intellectual Activist and is currently on the Board of Advisors of the Ayn Rand Instutute. Schwartz is also a believer in the school of philosophy known as objectivism, which, according to Students of Objectivism's Brad Foster, is a "study of the philosophic ideas of Ayn Rand." In his speech, Schwartz adopted the. " moral" side which he characterized as completely non-secular. He used the word "moral" to refer to the preservation of human life. "Preservation of human life" is precisely the reason why Schwartz. believes that the government should continue to stockpile strategic nuclear weapons. According to Schwartz, the American nuclear arsenal is moral while the Soviet arsenal is immoral. His reasoning is that our nuclear weapons exist solely for the preservation of life while the Soviets' are used for destroying life. Schwartz continued his discussion, referring to the Soviet Union as a "slave state." He tended to fall back on this point to assert his arguments as to why the US needed nuclear weapons. Moreover, Schwartz claimed that we have a very poor defense against preemptive nuclear strikes and equated our current readiness to the "dying man pulling the trigger on his killer. " Schwartz' critique of American defense also included a comparative analysis of the distribution and concentration of American and Soviet nuclear weapons. He implied that our current investment in submarine launched missiles leads to a concentration on attacking soft targets such as population centers while the Soviets concentrate on ICBMs, which are best suited to attack hard targets, such as missile silos. Schwartz asserted that our system is wrong because-eoncentrating our firepower on population centers would do less damage in terms of deaths than the Soviets lost in World War Two. The Soviets could do nearly ten times as much damage to the US because we

do not have a highly organized civil defense. In his closing remarks, Schwartz discussed the possible repercussions of a US arms buildup and stressed that nearly any type of buildup would be destabilizing. Schwartz' response to this outcome is that we should try for destabilization because fear is one of the main facto.s that would keep the Soviets from launching a preemptive nuclear strike. In the question and answer session, Schwartz seemed evasIve and often acted impatient when faced with difficult questions. Schwartz' stand was "moral" based on his definition. His ideas, however, seemed somewhat shallow, his evidence lacking and depth nearly non-existent.

Craig Brown is a Sophomore in LSA and a staff writer for the Review.

October, 1986

page 10 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Terror continued from page 5

of power more generally, will, in the judgement of many observers, erode the hierarchical features of the international system and help right the imbalance by which the powerful remain rich and the weak impoverished." Klaus Knorr concurs. "(T)he strengthening of LDC (lesser-developed countries) military sovereignty, and the consequent diffusion of military capacity that would be increased by the spread of nuclear weapons, would probably benefit the South further in its political, military, and economic relations with the North." The theory is that the large, industrial nations, in order to gain influence with the new nuclear countries, would increase their economic aid and diplomatic relations. For example, less than two months after India exploded a bomb in 1974, they received over $200 million in new aid from the West! Naturally, a huge contingent of experts are diametrically opposed to proHeration. There are dozens of arguments against the spread of nuclear weaponry. They include: ( I) an accidental detonation could kill millions; (2) a miscalculation by a nation

could result in an unintentional nuclear war; (3) a fanatical leader could "misuse" his nation's nuclear power; (4) terrorists would have an easier time obtaining a nuclear device for nuclear blackmail; (5) nuclear arms races would result; (6) nations would preemptively attack each other-like Israel on Iraq-to prevent nuclear programs from completion; the list continues indefinitely. However, note that each of these arguments is only a "risk": that there is a chance these catastrophes might happen. That is "risk analysis". The question is: does a proliferated world present more risk of death and human suffering than a non-proliferated world? Some would argue that even the mere risk of use of a nuclear weapon outweighs any advantages of proliferation. While emotionalIly this sounds logical, is it a reasonable argument? Many have said that with twice the number of nuclear states, there is twice the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. That "linear" logic, however, may not be so sound. K. Subrahamanyan ofIndia writes, "(T)he thesis that the greater the number of nuclear weapons the greater the danger of a nuclear war breaking out is a hangover of the fifties when there was not adequate understanding about the nature of nuclear war." That nature, simply put, is the fear ("balance of terror") that nuclear weapons create:They force political leaders to be much more cautious, as Kenneth Waltz of U Cal-Berkeley explains: "New nuclear

states are likely to be even more mindful of dangers and more concerned for their safety than some of the old ones have been. Ordinarily, weak states calculate more fearfully and move more cautiously than strong ones." There are two ways nuclear weapons would be used: deliberate war or accidental use. The risk of nuclear war deliberately being waged, ifthe deterrent theory holds, is zero. George Quester of Cornell writes, "As we move ahead in the international system where the possessors of nuclear weapons generally share an aver-

Although there is great fear in Europe ofa nuclear war, even the harshest critics of nuclear weapons must admit that Europe has seen the most peacefuL 40 years of its entire history. sion to further proliferation, nuclear weapons will not be used in combat by any of the states that possess them." However, there is always the risk of "unautherized" use (from accidents, terrorists, etc.). What needs to be determined is if that is an acceptable risk. The answer, many contend, is yes. The argument centers around deterrence. If we accept that proliferation will end many conventional wars then fewer people will by dying in these wars. The question is if these limited uses of nuclear weapons (by terrorists or accidents) will kill more people than the conventional wars would have. The Journal of Conflict Resolution

. . . .-----I'

....,.~~-~-----~~....,.:""""'-~---....,.-~----:---'C""""'":-----------

Grenada continued from page 4 groundwork for Operation Urgent Fury despite our almost total lack of intelligence regarding the situation on the island and the exact location of the American students. Friday the 21 st was a day of key importance, as Grenada's democratic neighbors in the region (Jamaica, Barbados, and four members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS): Antigua, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Dominica), all deeply alarmed, urgently appealed to America for military help. On Saturday morning Governor-General Scoon, who had been imprisoned in his home, managed to get a message out through Barbados describing the nightmarish situation on the island. Later that afternoon, the decision to launch Operation Urgent Fury was effectively made in a meeting of the White House Special Situation Group, consisting of Vice President Bush, Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and other high officials, with President Reagan and Secretary of State Schultz in satellite communication from Georgta.

At II :22pm, 6:22am Sunday in Beirut, a suicide truck driver crashed into the barracks of the U.S. Marine Peacekeeping Force in the war-tom city, killing over 250. This tragedy, while bringing the President back to Washington, did not affect the decision to rescue Grenada from its terror. "If it was right then, it's right now," the President told his officials. As the nation learned of the loss of the Americans struggling for peace and democracy in Lebanon, more Americans were gearing up to protect those ideals here in our hemishpere. On Tuesday morning the 25th, the Urgent Fury of an American military which had had only two years of budget increases to offset a decade of dangerous neglect, scorn, and ridicule descended upon Grenada~ At 9:07 Tuesday evening President Reagan briefed the nation on the operation that had begun before dawn. "This morning, forces from six Caribbean democracies and the United States began landings on Grenada. . ." The action began with Marines from the helicopter carrier Guamand a nine-ship Northern Task Force assaulting and quickly taking Pearles Airport, on the northeast shore of the island, against sharp but brief Cuban resistance. The campuses ofSt. George's Medical School, where the American students were thOUght to be still confined, as well as the

contends that the proliferated world will have less human suffering, even if a few nuclear accidents occur: "Using the 40 most recent wars as a crude indicator, this analysis implies that a single miscalculation or irrational exchange in the Third World would have to kill several tens of millions of people before some proliferation would be unjustified by yielding a higher expected loss of life. It seems to us unlikely that one such miscalculated or irrational act among third world countries, each with a very few warheads, could produce this level of loss."

capital city of St. George's, are clustered in the island's southwestern quarter. With the dawn, the first wave of the main assault came down on the Point Salines Airport, on the southwestern tip. C-I30s flew into very heavy anti-aircraft fire from ZSU-23-4 AAA and AAA-equipped BTR-60 APCs, and dropped their force of Army Rangers from just 500 feet, a jump altitude not employed in battle since WW2. The Rangers' brief canopy rides were exposed to AK-47 fire from the Cubans and Grenadian communists defending the airport, who, alerted by Havana to U.S. military movements, had been readying themselves since Saturday. After securing the airport in fierce fighting and taking 250 Cuban prisoners, the Rangers began moving east toward the "True Blue" medical campus and north toward the "Grand Anse" campus, each of which held hundreds of terrified American students surrounded by Cubans. While the "True Blue" force drove off the communist troops and rescued the students inside, the force moving north entered a large storage area, with six warehouses crammed with boxes marked "Cuban Economic office". Inside them were thousands see page 14

Naturally, this reasoning seems cruel and cold-blooded. But if our foreign policies are made to deter and limit human suffering, and if it is reasonable that regional symmetrical nuclear proliferation will reduce or even halt conventional wars, then this "risk" of use of nuclear weapons is justified. However, the arguments do not stop there. There is some opinion that the first use of nuclear weapons would have, in the long run, very beneficial results. Certainly, millions of people might die. But perhaps this would be the last time nuclear weapons would threaten us! Lewis Dunn delineates: "A small-power nuclear war that escalated to the destruction of cities thereby causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fatalities ,would be a sobering demonstration of the dangers of proliferation as well as of the power and responsibility held by those countries that possess nuclear weapons. It undoubtedby would lead to a wide-spread humanitarian outcry against the acquisition, possession, modernization, and use of nuclear weapons." This deadly theory is repeated by many other experts. William Epstein writes: "(I)t has been suggested by some scholars that the only thing that could shock the nations of the world, and in particular the superpowers, into taking any really effective action would be the occurrence of a nuclear disaster or catastrophe. This council of despair is based on the belief that it is only in times of great crisis or calamity that the nations and peoples of the world are roused out of their apathy and inertia and galvanized into taking action." While it is easy to speculate hypothetically, it is another thing to test these theories on the real world. Who Would want to trust proliferation to create "peace" in our world, only to find out that the theories were wrong? Certainly not this author. But in relation to national policy goals, it is clear that nuclear proliferation is not yet appreciated or understood. The JCR sums up the situation. "As a consequence of our near unanimity, we have barely looked at the antiproliferation part of the (national) policy and thus are tnlly ignorant of its consequences. In a world in which proliferation occurs despite our stance and in which the conditions surrounding the policy are in flux, our ignorance of the effects is unfortunate, certainly for us and perhaps for the whole world."

~".'-',Il';l;~ ".~" ",." ,';"'"

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 11

October, 1986

Reform continued from page 6 proliferation of anti-ship missiles, increased Soviet ship-hunting capabilities, and the improvements in the highly capable Soviet submarine fleet, the carriers are quite vulnerable, even with a five-billion dollar defense; -The carriers are few in number (IS); if we lost only a few in a war, our Navy would be in serious jeopardy: -For all of the carrier's aircraft and support ships, only a small percentage of their firepower is meant to engage the enemy; most of it is designed for defense. Thus their "power projection" capabilities are very poor when compared to capable Third World nations (like Vietnam or Brazil).

Finally, Hart and Luttwak criticize the military's most tlambouyant equipment: the fighter/attack aircraft. Hart has a general distaste for large, expensive fighters like the F-14 and F-15. He cites 1974 training exercises, where small fighters (like the F-5 and, now, F-16) fared just as well as the large expensive fighters. Indeed, he maintains that (according to military statistics) 85 per cent of all planes shot down never saw their attacker, thus, the smaller planes are at a huge advantage in war, because they cannot be seen as easily. Hart advocates building small, lightweight fighters like the F-16

Because everyone is afraid ofmaking a bad decision. the other option is chosen-no decision.

Hart (and, though not discussed in detail, Luttwak too) advocates the submarine as the Navy's key ship. He proposes to triple the number of attack submarines{froin 99 to 3(0),as : well as make many diesel-powered. Finally, he disputes the Navy's wartime strategy: to charge into Soviet waters and knock out the Red Fleet before they reach open seas. Hart argues that the Soviet fleet is weak on the open waters, but strong when bottled up in their home waters. Since he believes that it is critical for America to maintain control of the oceans to have any capability to win a war, he contends that it would be suicidal and excessively risky to engage the Soviets in Soviet waters.

(whose design was greatly influenced by reformist Pierre Sprey). He dislikes the helicoptor, noting its frailty and short range. (The Army lost 8 helicoptors in Grenada-against an 路 enemy that had virtually no aerial defense!) These two works are not exhaustive on the many reforms necessary. But they do make important suggestions, and very valid criticisms. What is clear that the reform movement is gaining more and more support in Congress; its ideas are not far from being policy.

A"StarWars" Ylb by Charles Lipsig On the contrary, there are many A common argument that will be used against this article is that as a civilian spinoifs. For example, the supporter of Star Wars research, I am X-ray laser, which is being considered as a possible Star Wars device, has biased. Well, it is true; I am. But then again, so are the detractors great potential in medical research. of Star Wars. Some of them are so An X-ray laser microscope could be at fanatical that they will allow their bias least as powerful as the electron to cloud their judgment and their microscope, (the most powerful prewriting. As such they create argu- sently available) with the advantage ments against Star Wars that are so that it would not kill the specimen fallacious in their extreme, that these being examined. Of more varied civilian use is the arguments would be embarrassing ifit were not for the fact that Star Wars is electron particle beam. The electron beam can be adjusted to penetrate a controversial topic. One of 1he arguments that cannot material to various de~ths, depending be explained except by this fanaticism on the intensity of the beam. Thereis that Star Wars has no civilian- fore , the electron beam may be oriented spinoffs. In the Weapons equally effective on cancer cells as on inSpace:Peace on Earth? (Michigan Soviet missiles. The electron beam Alliance for Disarmament, 1986) may also be used to kill fruit damaging essay "Pie in the Sky?" Michigan parasites, such as the Mediterranean Ph.D. candidate John Boies writes fruit fly, diminishing the need for "Some people might say that Star hazardous chemicals. Another poten- Wars research isn't so bad because in tial use for the particle beam is against addition to getting important weapons developments that make us more 'secure,' we also get important see page 12 spinoffs such as Teflon, microwave ovens, and transistors which help our civilian economy as well . . . (but) contemporary weapon systems such as BMD (ballistic missile defense, i.e. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Charles D. Lipsig is a Senior in Star Wars) require very esoteric Statistics and a personnel manager of technologies that are not likely to be of the Review. much use to the civilian economy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

page 12 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW October, 1986 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................

PSC Bowlmania by Joe Typho The People's Sit-in Co-op held the first annual PSC Bowlingmania at Dexter's Capitalist Lanes. The event . was a fundraiser for the group's 1986-87 activities calendar. About 15 dedicated PSC members showed up for the event, which raised $319.57 from the local community. For many in the group, this was their first contact with the stereotypically working class sport. "Ooh. Is that a hammer and sickle on his arm? How proletarian", stated Eudora Phillips. The Chairman corrected her, "It's an anchor." There were problems as the group rented bowling shoes. PSC un-conscience FB74 complained rather loudly, "Why are they forcing us to conform to their standards? This makes no sense. We should wear sandals or go barefoot." Delbert

McSchwein objected, "We must occasionally adopt the methods of the fascists in order to gain support. This is an appropriate occasion. I refuse, however, to tie my laces, which symbolize emotional bondage." The group made its way to their four reserved lanes. Eudora was upset when she saw the bowling balls. "I don't understand it at all. These balls all have three holes in them. It makes no sense. It is symbolic of the threeworld Trilateralist mentality, where we separate the state capitalist Soviets from the corporate capitalists and cleave them from the Third World, who offer the best examples of oneparty rule and peace and justice for those with the guns. So I think we should find balls with two holes." The bowling finally started. After Delbert's first gutter ball ex-Michigan

coach Elliott Wren screamed, "Lights! Look, they've got a pin-counter and it uses electricity! This could be an application of military research or something! Tum it oft1" The Chairman showed wisdom in saying, "Let us ignore it." FB74 then noticed the pin pattern. "Once again we see bigotry on the part of the powers-that-be. Ten pins. Always ten pins. We have ten fingers. Coincidence? I doubt it. Why not 17 pins? Up heptadecimalists believe that we must recognize those in our society who have 17 fingers." The Chairman noted, "FB, you can't put 17 pins in a triangle." Things settled down after that, at least until the seventh frame, which was a beer frame (FB had to buy). The group enjoyed their pitcher of Lowenbrau, until the waitress noted that

she had accidentally given them Coors. The group ran from the building screaming and spewing. They never came back and if you have any information on the PSC's location, call Jim at 555-5319. He wants his shoes back.

Joseph Typho is路 a graduate student in the School of Natural Resources and Buddhist Studies and is running an unopposed write-in campaign for Michigan's 19th Congressional district, America's only unpopulated District.

Star Wars continued from page II acid rain: an electron beam can break apart the sulfur dioxide molecules that cause acid rain. The molecular components would then be recombined into easily filterable substances. A ground based laser system would require extremely precise mirrors. These precision mirrors may also be used in astronomical telescopes of higher quality than presently available. On the other end of the size spectrum, the instruments used to make perfect mirrors may be used to grind perfect contact lenses for people with unusual sight impairments. The supercomputers that are being developed for weapon research are also being used to help design mathematical and statistical models in such fields as economics, astronomy, engineering, and meteorology. In "Pie in the Sky?" Boies writes:"lf we want technologies to deal with acid rain (an alleged spinoff of Star Wars research), it makes a lot more sense to spend money directly on research that will produce these civilian technologies rather than hoping that military research will accidentally produce some form of economically useful spinoffs." There are several inaccuracies in this passage. First, we do not'

have to "hope" for spinoffs; some have already been developed. An optical instrument developed at Los Alamos, as part of Star Wars research, has been adapted to medical research. This device, which can make fast, inexpensive analyses of viral components of the blood, is just one of the Star Wars spinoffs already in use. Furthermore, in some cases, the military and civilian research is identical, except that the funding comes from the military, such as basic research in X-ray lasers, and the optics research for better mirrors. But there is a more basic pre blem Boies' argument. Boies implies that spinoffs would always be found with direct research. This is not true. One of the major attributes of spinoffs is that they are serendipitous; many spinoffs are unexpected applications of research that would not have been found with direct research. The fact that Boies considers the anti-acid rain applications of the electron beam to be only "alleged" shows that it is not (at least to some people) an obvious application. Yet this application exists. If one doubts the existence of Star Wars spinoffs, then that person is not aware of the research being conducted.

Boies writes that spinoffs of Star Wars (or to be more accurate, the anti-acid rain application) are not actual, but "alleged." However the spinoffs exist. Some Star Wars detractors are so fanatical that they will believe what supports their argument even when reality shows otherwise. As such, they are reminiscent of the authorities who forced Galileo to disavow his proofs that the Earth

revolves around the sun, because it forced them to revise their worldview. However, the more disturbing aspect of this fanaticism is that Star Wars detractors are apparently unable or unwilling to tell the truth about comparatively minor aspects, such as spinoffs. If so, can they be trusted to tell the truth about more important questions, such as possible Soviet responses or technology feasibility?

i!i:Sl~~~"""'I.~",)l..l:I..4M"""'"=~""""/'''"' '''~''' '

October, 1986 •••••• ".a.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 13 ~

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••• • ••••••• •

• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•••••••••••••••••••••••

................................... .

iprciul 1t1rutur£

Gridiron '86 by Pat Batcheller With the college football season well underway, and with most of the top teams having played once or twice, we are quickly realizing who the best teams in the nation are and how well they should do this season. So here are our predictions as to who the top twenty teams will be come January. Please keep in mind that this poll was developed prior to the games of September 27, so anything I say might explode in my face.

.........

,,/

1. OKLAHOMA SOONERS (12-0). This team is awesome. Coach Barry Switzer's crew quickly established themselves by manhandling a highly overrated den of UCLA Bruins in a 35-3 rout at Norman, OK. (Not to mention a 63-0 shellacking of Minnesota). These games dispelled any doubts about whether or not the .Sooners would make it through the first· part of their schedule, which had them travelling to Miami on September 27. (Note: By now, this game is history. I am, of course, assuming that Oklahoma won. If not. . . uh. . . no comment.). The only team between the Sooners and a national title is Nebraska. Look for another showdown in the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day between Oklahoma and Miami. Can the Sooners beat the 'Canes twice in one year at Miami? You bet your Sooner Schooner they can.

..........

that started on August 27 and ends on November 29? Can they get past five other top twenty teams (Penn State, Auburn, LSU, Horida and Notre Dame) unscathed?

........... 3. MIAMI HURRICANES (10-2). If President Reagan needs a model for America's most efficient offensive weaponry, he can look in Miami. Jimmy Johnson's pro-set offense is college football's most explosive. Led by senior quarterback Vinnie Testaverde (216 of 352 passes complete for 3,238 yards and 21 touchdowns in 1985), the 'Canes are already averaging almost 40 points per game. With a creampuff schedule (except for Oklahoma and Horida State), they should f!!tten up on weak competition.

.......... 4. MICHIGAN WOLVERINES (11-2). Lose twice? Lose at all?!? How dare I show my face around campus. But it is simple tradition. History reveals that whenever UM is expected to compete for the national title, they stumble. Michigan has not gone undefeated and untied since 1948, the year of their last national title. And if the defense continues to playas they did against Notre Dame and piddling Oregon State, they will not go undefeated this year. But do not cry for Michigan. The trip to Pasadena is in the bag, and so is their second straight top five finish.

Here is how the rest of the pack looks:

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

AUBURN (10-2) NEBRASKA (10-2) LSU (9-3) BAYLOR (10-2) WASHINGTON (10-2) BYU (11-2) GEORGIA (9-3) TEXAS A&M (9-3) FLORIDA (9-2-1) NOTRE DAME (8-4) MARYLAND (8-4) ARKANSAS (8-4) FLORIDA STATE (8-4) USC (8-4) MSU (8-4)

Other teams to watch: STANF0RD, ARIZONA, NORTH CAROLINA,ARMY, IOWA, UCLA, PURDUE, EASTERN MICHIGAN.

Wait a minute. Go back one. Did I say Eastern Michigan? As in Ypsilanti? As in eight wins in their last 63 games? THAT Eastern Michigan? Yep. That's right-The fighting Hurons of Eastern. Sources within the Mid-American Conference have said that Jim Harkema's Hurons have as good a shot as anyone in that league to win the coveted trip to the California

00 If lEVER

~IKD-m~GW

',i\lY, WING 2. ALABAMA CRIMSON TIDE (12-1). Just in case Oklahoma does not win their second straight NCAA championship, the next choice would have to be Ray Perkins' Alabama team. The Tide has a strong offensive foundation, built around quarterback Mike Shula and a defense which had a rough start against the surprisingly inept OSU Buckeyes. The defense, however, should improve as the season progresses. The biggest question mark in Tuscaloosa is the schedule. Can the Tide weather a regular season

. . . . ...11-

5. PENN STATE NITTANY LIONS (10-2). Many writers and fans are reluctant to rank the Lions this high becaue "they don't play anybody." While Penn State does have a number of weak teams on its schedule, they also play Alabama and Notre Dame on the road as well as Maryland at home. With D.J. Dozier at tailback (723 yards in 1985) and Shane Conlan at outside linebacker (91 tackles in 1985), .the Lions are good enough to win it all this year.

MSlO~ ..·

Bowl as conference champs. Not bad for a team that was threatened with extinction two years ago. There has not been this much excitement over the Hurons in Ypsilanti in Lord knows how long. By the way, here is how I see the Big Ten Race:

1. Blue-Natch. 2. Stench City-Do not let the first two games fool you. 3. The Ag school 4. The Hayden Frys . 5. The Quarterback Factory 6. USC-Midwest 7. Bronze Beavers 8. Budweiser U. 9. Whatz a Hoosier? 10. Guess.

See you in January!

Pat Batcheller is a Junior in Communications and a staff writer for the Review.

'1,~~"'-"---""""'~ :;

.,~ ... ~~~.~,- ,,,,,,,,,,,;:~ ,.,,.- ~.'"

October, 1986 page 14 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW . . . . . . " .. . .. .. .. ........ . ... ... " ...... .. ...... . . . .. ... .. .. . ..... ... . ... ....... ............ ...... ..... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ..... ... .. . . .. . . .. .. . . ... . , ...... .. ... ... ... .. .. ..... . . . .. ......... ,

Grenada

What's the Difference?

continued from page 10 of automatic rifles, 120mm mortars, AA guns, and tons of ammunition. The Cuban soldiers, who had been described by Havana as "construction workers", were obviously a professional combat regiment and stubbornly defended each of the buildings. 'A "lo"A headquarters building yielded documents indicating that as many as 1100 Cubans were either on or had recently been on the island. Also in this area was the Soviet Embassy, which our troops sealed off. Holed up in the Embassy, in addition to Soviets, were several dozen East Germans, Bulgarians, North Koreans, and Libyans. After the fighting, all were flown to Mexico City, but not before their the island. $21 million from America personal bags were revealed to conand $6 million from Canada were sent tain yet hundreds more rifles and to complete the airport that the pistols. Cubans had started- the delicious Meanwhile, while troops from the irony was that now it really would be 82nd Airborne reinforced Point Saused to bring tourists to the island. A lines Airport, the Rangers and Marines rescued the Grand Anse stuyear later, as the elections for the new I5-member National Assembly and dents, who had been singing The Star Spangled Banner and America the Prime Minister neared, Father: Cyril Lamontagne told the Mass crowded Beautiful to houy their spirits during into the Catholic cathedra}, in St. tile'. . tighting; . and.<lied .". for .tbOir assualt on the capital the next mornGeorge's that America had "stretched ing. During the liberation of the city, forth its mighty hand to bring us back with air support assisting American • from the mouth of Hell". forces in heavy fighting, U.S. troops ping American troops to the hiding places of Coard and Austin, both of broke the seige of Governor-General whom were captured, the rescued Scoon's residence, where a squad of people of Grenada showered their II Navy Seals had been holding off over 50 heavily armed Cubans and an liberators in affection, gifts, and APC for 21 hours. By the time of the flowers while the rescued American students dramatically returned home relief, 10 of the II had been wounded. With the communists vanquished in and kissed American soil, telling the the capital, only one strong point harrowing tale of their ordeal. Grenadians took to their streets crying remained, at Calivgny on the eastern for joy, shouting for Grenada to shore. Our troops assaulted and took become the 51 st state and for the it on Thursday the 27th, and captured unfinished Point Salines Airport to be more huge caches of arms and documents. With this, the mili1ary action named " Ronald Reagan International Airport". Walls proclaimed "Thank was essentially completed save for God for U.S. and Caribbean heroes of mopping up in the hills. freedom" and "God Bless America". America had lost 19 men; over half One American soldier spoke the of these died in helicopter downings thoughts of all when he said, "After all and accidents. More than 70 Cuban the flack we've taken the past I 0 years, soldiers lay dead, along with many this is great!" Even Grenadian leftists Grenadian communist militiamen. Now the process of restoring demoand former Bishop officials, having been rescued from terror and murder, cracy to the island began. After tipjoined in the euphoria. Lloyd Noel, Their mission accomplished, the Bishop's Attorney General, said that victorious American troops began America should establish a base and returning horne (all combat troops stay at least two years. What we did were gone by 15 December), and being immediately was to establish replaced by volunteers from the Peace Governor-General Scoon in a leaderCorps and the Agency for Internaship role. Scoon announced the tional Development (AID). America forthcoming appointment of a 12man began pouring in millions of dollars to interim council to prepare for elecrepair roads, to build schools, hostions. He also called for a force from pitals, and public works, and to aid British Commonwealth nations to agriculture, the primary industry of

1ll0lAk... TIl.

C.AWS

'!Y

•

'.Ie.

police the island until the elections, a job then being done by the troops of the OECS nations, Jamaica, and Barbados. America had accomplished the noblest of missions quickly and effectively. However, a close look at the military action reveals some disturbing signs of the decade of neglect, abuse, and accumulated ring rust that our forces had carried into battle. Some of these "blunders" - as the critics of the operation, both wellintentioned and warped, were to call them- were attributable to the basest behavior imaginable by communist forces in battle, abuse of innocent civilians reminiscent of that of the North Vietnamese. Other occurances were the types of chance mishaps that have always been a part of battle. Others, however, drew clear pictures oflessons to be learned as our military continues to restore itself. The bombing of the mental hospital near St. George's, which killed a score of patients, is oft-cited as an "example" of a U.S. mistake costing innocent lives. In fact, this tragedy was the result of shocking communist evil. When the nearby Grenadian Army barracks learned that a U.S. airstrike was imminent, its soldiers raised the Grenadian Army flag outside the hospital, which had been shorn of all medical marltings, and moved AAA to within 150 yards of the hospital· building. A-7 pilots streaking in to attack the barracks could hardly be blamed for mistaking the hospital for what the communi~ls had deliberately guised it as- a military headquarters. There were some errors and inefficiencies in U .S military performance; they cost American, not Cuban or Grenadian , casualties. Before dawn on the morning of the assault, a squad

of four highly trained Navy Seals (Sea-Air-Land) w'as drowned in a freak mishap wtUch capsized their boat. In one instance, twelve U.S. servicemen were wounded when, while they were in close. combat with Cuban and Grenadian communist forces, an A-7 dropped bombs which hit both the enemy and our troops. This type of accident, while unfortunate,occUl'l,inall war-. even to the best of forces. Five U .S. helicopters were lost in the operation: three on missions to draw enemy ground fire in order to expose its sources to the devastating fire of AC-130 Spectre gunships, and two during the assault on Point Salines Airport when a chopper that had been hit struck another in its uncontrolled descent. Thanks to the bravery of the helicopter pilots, the AC·130s annihilated a large number of communist AAA pieces and crews. Areas where the military may be legitimately criticized regarding this operation are in planning, inter-service cooperation, and communications, the sine qua non of an operation like Urgent Fury. It is almost universally · qreed that the Rangers should have moved on Point Salines at night. which would have taken advantage of their training, and, among other 1hings, spared both the C-130s and the canopy-borne Rangers much of the sround fire that they endured. The Navy is known to have excluded the Air Force and Army

see page J5

"""~"~_,lt&'!<aI;\>.""W"'l!,-"'c.IIl<",_",""~''1>-_''',,,,",,,''''~

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 15 October, 1986 .. .. .. .. ... .. ...... .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .... ... .. . .. . .. . .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ....................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ ..... ................................ ~

Grenada continued from page 14 from much of its important planning, and one of the communication/cooperation "horror stories" that has come to light is that on one occasion, a Navy Captain had to disregard (fortunately) orders from higher up not to refuel Army helicopters which were returning from battle. The services have always competed for glory in combat; it is frightening, however, to think that forces of democracy would put that competition ahead of combat effectiveness in battle against democracy's enemies. In short, they seem to have forgotten that they are on the same team. Another story reveals that one U.S. soldier had to search for a still-operating phone and then use his phone credit card to call Ft. Bragg in North Carolina- to get an airstrike near his position. Problems like these demand attention, especially in a military with billions and billions of dollars of the most sophisticated communications equipment. Secretary of Defense Weinberger has said that our forces haveagressively pursued and internalized the lessons of combat on Grenada. It is instructive and necessary to put the Grenada military , operation in the context of recent "'history both before and after Urgent Fury. The mission was by necessity planned and executed with minimal intelligence data by a military machine which had suffered a decade of neglect and abuse, and still American forces on the whole performed very well. The operation is best seen as the end of that decade, the turning point where U.S. forces began working out the accumulated bugs of the postVietnam and Carter years while accomplishing a noble mission. It is important to note that on Grenada American forces were deployed with A) WITH CLARITY OF MISSION and B) IN SUFFICIENT FORCE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT MISSION.The three mission criteria- to extricate our students quickly and safely, to establish order, and to then depart as soon as possible leaving behind the conditions for the democratic processwere all accomplished cleanly and effectively. Thus the operation, militarily, was an unquestionable if at times less than scintillating success. To further judge that success, we must examine our military performance since then. Six weeks after the operation, America struck at Syrian anti-aircraft forces in eastern Lebanon. Despite the facts that A) these were probably the most formidable anti-aircraft forces anywhere outside the Soviet Union, far improved over the forces that the Israelis mauled in

1982, B) the A-6 and A-7 aircraft flown in the strike were nearly obsolete and flew in daylight, and C) the Syrians had advance warning from the time that the planes left their carrier off Beirut; the attack destroyed almost all of its assigned targets with the loss of two of 28 planes. Clearly, whatever remained to be desired in planning and equipment, the American airmen performed exceptionally well and made abundantly clear that we would not tolerate the firing of SAM potshots at our reconnaissance aircraft over the Beirut area. From there, the picture improves further. In October 1985 the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean displayed excellent command, control, and communications, (C3)- deficient on Grenada- in finding, intercepting, and forcing to land in Italy the hijackers of the Achille Lauro. This year, our forces were impressive in punishing Libya's Moammar Khadafy for his terrorist actions, first in March when our planes destroyed three marauding Libyan missile boats and an anti-aircraft radar at Sirte, and then in April

organized their country's first-ever free, independent, democratic political campaign. Nine political partiesincluding Bishop's Marxist New Jewel Movement- began vying for the elections to be held on 3 December 1984. Meanwhile, the people of the island were free to get themselves back on their badly bruised economic feet. Although the island's chief productsnutmeg, cocoa, and bananas- were in depressed markets, the people now had the freedom necessary to address their problems. U.S. businesses were encouraged to move to the island. U.S. and other foreign aid had begun rebuilding the island's infrastructure and finishing the Point Salines Airport, with its promise of lucrative tourism. On election day, Grenadians elected moderate Herbert Blaize of the New National Party, who had once headed the island's home government in British colonial days, Prime Minister with 59% of the vote. Gairy, heading the Grenada United Labor Party, received 37%.The Marxists were virtually ignored. Almost all of the island's 48,000 registered voters

Yet despite the obvious necessity and success of Operation Urgent Fury, there still were bleats from the left in Congress that we had acted too rashly, too quickly, and that the President had not consulted Congress. with the major air attacks on Tripoli (by USAF F-l11 s flying on the deck at night all the way from Britain) and Benghazi (by carrier-based Navy planes). In this comprehensive light, then, the nature of Urgent Fury as a military turning point becomes clear. Geopolitically, the mission'!, success was brilliant and unmitigated. Immediately, Castro was thrown on the defensive, and, while receiving the bodies of his dead soldiers in Havana, was left to make excuses for the inevitable defections expected from among the 640 Cubans taken prisoner during the fighting. The first U.S. rescue of a communist-beseiged Caribbean island since the mission to the Dominican Republic in 1965 had shown the Moscow-Havana-Managua axis that no longer could it spread terror, murder, and slavery in the Western Hemisphere with impunity. U.S. allies in the region, such as Prime Minister Edward Seaga of Jamaica, had reason to take heart. Non-democratic states had an incentive to question the wisdom of any alliance with Cuba and communism: in Surinam, strongman Desi Bouterese sent all the Cubans home and entertained a State Department envoy in Paramaribo, showing that "dominoes" could "fall" in the right direction for a change, Now the world viewed the results of the effective use of power, American style, As gratitude poured out of the island and aid poured in, Grenadians

took part. It was a glorious triumph for democracy and justice. To fully appreciate the geopolitical meaning of the Grenada rescue as a turning point, though, one must look back at the dark decade of the 1970s, and its effects on the world and on the mores of those that it left entrenched inside the Washington Beltway. In January 1973 the last U.s. forces left Vietnam. We had vanquished the enemy, bombed North Vietnam into submission, and made South Vietnam safer and freer than at any time since the first American combat death there in 1959. Then the U.S. Congress literally threw away all that had been sacrificed- including 58,000 American lives- and all that had been gained- a country with a chance for democracyby refusing to continue to aid South Vietnam. After two years of massive resupply by the Soviet Union, North Vietnam was ready to roll once more upon the South, which now lay naked and in turmoil. As South Vietnam fell, so did Cambodia and Laos. Genocide followed, with millions being murdered in Cambodia and at least a million more drowning while trying to escape by sea. America's reaction was to cast itself into a five-year wormhok of wretched nihilism and self-reproach during which the expansion of the Soviets' and their Cuban proxies, unchecked,:, cut a strategic swath across Africa and Asia, enslaving scores of millions more and threatening to cut the West off from its oil

and mineral supplies. Simultaneously, , the tide spilled over into America's own back yard in Central America. The litany of despair: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Mozambique in 1975, Angola in 1976, Ethiopia in 1977, South Yemen in 1978, and Afghanistan in 1979 (a straight line is drawn through these last four countries). Ethiopia's communist regime has exacerbated the mass starvation in that country through a huge arms buildup made to threaten its strategic neighbor, Somalia, and is known to have diverted much of the foreign food aid bound for the starving people to the Army and the Party. Also in 1979, the worst year geopolitically for America and democracy in the post-war era, Iran was plunged into the chaos which precipitated the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Soviets began their new move into our hemishpere. They sponsored the Sandinistas in stealing a revolution from the Nicaraguan people; the Sandinistas, channelling the flow of Soviet arms to the n1ext targeted domino, El Salvador, began fomenting the guerilla violence and terror there which was at its peak at the time of the crisis on Grenada, For the President, who can proudly claim that "not one inch" of territory has fallen to communism during his tenure, the imperitive to act was clear路路 when Grenada's democratic neighbors cried out for help and hundreds of young Americans on the island were put in danger. Yet despite the obvious necessity and success of Operation Urgent Fury, there still were bleats from the left in Congress that we had acted too rashly, too quickly, and that the President had not consulted Congress. In fact, Reagan did notify Congress as required by law and conducted the entire operation within the constraints of the War Powers Act, a spasm of the postVietnam nihilism which severely limits a President's ability to carry out his responsibilities to protect the national interest. Moderate columnist Hugh Sidey cast clear light on the matter: "Congress is 535 pieces of shattered political authority, most of whom (in a crisis) are frightened and bewildered, reverting to the safe ground of doubt and complaint , . . for times like these, we have a President". President Reagan offered perhaps the best, most succinct summary of the mission: "Grenada was a Soviet-Cuban colony being readied as a major military bastion to export terrorism and undermine democracy. We got there just in time", Later, he offered a rationale which should be a credo for our country: "We commit (, ur resources and risk the Ii ves of those in our armed forces to rescue others from bloodshed and turmoil and to prevent humanity from drowning in a sea of tyranny", rJ

,:-'----:- ....

~'-<.

page 16 THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

October, 1986

........................................................................................................................................... ....................................... .... .......... ...

fiooks in

~ruirlU

Baseball Historical Abstract by Steve Angelotti THE BILL JAMES HISTORICAL BASEBALL ABSTRACT. by Bill James. New York: Villard Books, 721 pages. Bill James lives in Kansas, with his wife and his computer. He analyzes baseball. Each year he publis~es The Baseball Abstract, where he reviews the previous season and analyzes the upcoming season "kind of like Street and Smith's only it's for adults." Most baseball annuals include a December peak at each team's roster, a few nice pictures, basic statistics, and predictions. The conventional style is not bad; but it does not dig too deeply. James, by contrast, gets to the guts of the game. James is a statistics buff. He has developed systems of analysis which weigh statistical inputs (hits, · runs, RBI's) to yield new, more complex and more relevant statistics. The most important of these is the "runs created" offensive statistic, which gives a much stronger indication of a ballplayer's contribution tp his team than do any of the raw statistics. Runs created also allows one to compare very different players, for instance, speedster Tim Raines vs. slugger Mike Schmidt. James' annual analysis often cuts through the surface and produces intriguing observations. For instance, his analysis of the decline of the Tigers from 1984 to 1985 comes to rest squarely not on the bullpen or attitude or management, but on the team's decline in bench production. The regulars had nearly the same runs

created statlstIcs, the pitching staff (starting and relieving) was nearly as solid. The only difference was a drop in runs created by the bench which almost completely accounted for the drop in team scoring (that is, Ruppert Jones gave way to the likes of Nelson Simmons). James' numbers clearly reveal the problem. James also plays the game of ranking the regulars at each position and he solidly backs up his judgments. It is not surprising that James would eventually apply his techniques to the entire history of baseball. He does this in The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, a review of baseball from the 1870's to the 1970's. The book is divided into three sections: First is a decade-by-decade look at the game-including all-star teams, best minor-league teams, ugliest players, new strategies, a gold mine of information. James expands his comments on some topics in major articles. Among these articles are outstanding pieces .on minor league starS, platooning, Hall CSfFame voting, relief pitching, and the effect of the designated hitter on strategy (James demonstrates convincingly that the DH rule increases strategy). The minor league essay is one in which James is most informative. In the first half of the century minor league teams were not affiliated with major league clubs. This meant that minor league teams had control of their players and could hold on to them forever, relinquishing control only if the price offered by a big league

team was high enough. Thus Lefty Grove had several great years with Baltimore in the International League before his team sold him to the Athletics. Grove was clearly a major league pitcher but the Baltimore club did not want to give up such a good drawing card without adequate compensation. Others were not as fortunate as Grove and would hit hundreds of homers or won hundreds of games without ever making it to the major leagues. Section II is a ranking of the top players at each position and the top 100 players of all time, with observations on many stars from Babe Ruth to Bill Freehan. James makes a solid case for Mike Schmidt as the greatest third baseman of all time (interesting not because Schmidt does not compare favorably to the competition but because Schmidt is often neglected in comparison to other present-day stars). James also unequivocally states that Mickey Mantle was a greater

Steve Angelotti is a graduate student in the Institute of Public Policy Studies, is an Executive Editor of the Review, and admits to haVing sprayed beer in the Law Library following the 1984 World Series.

(~.

PAYIN' THE FIDDLER an you gvess who sold the following? " Why don't somebody print the truth abOUt our present economic condition? We spent years of wild buying on credit , everything under the sun. wheltier we needed it or not. and now we are having to pay for It ... This would be a great world to donee In If we didn't hove to pay the fiddler,"

No.it's not a govemment official attempting to shift the blame for high interest rates . Neither Is it the PresI den!"s budget director trying to justify further cuts In federal spending. These words were spoken by a man better loved in times more tragic . The speaker? Will Rogers. The time? The Great Depression . The lesson? We hove foiled to learn It.

-w,1Of4>. . 11IERE IG

A~E.~oF

• In the lost twenty years, the fed· era I government has balanced the budget only once. • While It took nearly two cen ' turies-untIl197S-for the federal deficit to reach Ihe 500

U~JZUOIfJG.. 1W YOO ~ HFAUMi

row!

center fielder than Willie Mays or Duke Snider and strongly backs his assertion. The third section includes statistics for the top players at each position. James explains his own statistics and their relevance then lays out the data on 200 of the most outstanding players of all time. My review is inadequate to describe the many treasures within James' book. Any baseball fanatic will devour it eagerly. Others who enjoy discussing the game and who respect baseball arguments based on fact will also be pleased. The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is an ideal gift from one baseball (an to ~nother or from one fan to him or herself.

y/~

•

bllllon-dollor-lTlark. I.t hoe doubled slne.then, • TOday It stands at 1 ttllIl20 dO:\on otter grOWing by approximately 58 billion dollars In 1981 alone.

• Your shOre of the natlonol debt Is approximately S5,000. or almost 820,000 If you support on overage family . It has been calCulated that at the rate of one dollar per second. It would toke about 31.700 years -for longer than the recorded history of mankind-to spend a trillion dOllars . The Interest payments alone on this trillion dOllar debt are almost $100 billion per year. As the President recently pointed out, that's more than the combined profits of the 500 big' gest companies in the country . When will we learn that we c an ' t "spend ourselves rlchT Wh01 will It toke to show us the cost of dancing wildly to the fiddler 's tune? If the ogoniZln9 y~rs of the . Depl'esslon dldn tleachus .~ thiS lesson, whal Will?

'." \

t ......... ~

•

HoIIadM' WI