European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - August 3, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse Saturday August 3, 1991 the stars and stripes a Page 13 commentary Tom threaten America s Well being Many an american is Happy that the cold War is Over and the astronomical Cost of the military must therefore be coming Down. Many others Are unhappy to discover that their states and municipalities no longer have the Money to pay for libraries schools Parks Public services and other accustomed amenities. Both kinds of americans May be shocked to discover that by the reckoning of the chairman of the Senate budget committee the Pentagon still is seeking More than $500 billion of taxpayers Money for a about 100 major weapons acquisitions targets for these weapons seem mostly to be in the eyes of their supporters. Nor is it Only the military that wants a lot of High priced hardware to play with. Both House and Senate have agreed to throw away $2 billion in fiscal 1992 on the space station ultimately it will Cost a nation that can to provide decent health care for millions of citizens the grandiose total of $30 billion. That May not count the $4 billion already Down the Drain and surely does no to include the expect Able Cost overruns or the design changes necessary to make this Turkey Fly if it Ever does. As for the superconducting supercollider a or is it the super colliding superconductor a this monstrosity will bleed taxpayers by Only $535 million in by 92 cigarette Money in the hardware league but $11 billion before it either supercool Lides or super conducts whichever comes first. Is opposition to these boondoggles anti science not at All. Sen Jim Sasser d-tenn., the aforementioned budget committee chairman pointed out in an oped article for the new York times that paying for the space station would a doom other necessary space science projects to extinction. But members of Congress apparently David s. Broder never met a big ticket item they did no to love. The military of course continues to be the biggest feeder at the technological trough. Here is Sasser a partial list of Pentagon phantasmagoria a Star. Wars despite a general accounting office report that the $24 billion already invested in this pipe dream has resulted in $3 billion wasted on poor planning and unproven technologies but very Little usable weaponry the Outlook is for $20 billion More to be blown into Blue sky Over the next three years. A the b-2 bomber someone ought to be Able to say Why we need this bomb at this Price about $16 billion. That would rebuild a if Congress must have hardware a a lot of highways and Bridges. A the Aegis Here a a real budget destroyer a High tech naval Ripoff flying a $10 billion Price tag at its for top. A the f-22 tactical fighter for $7.1 billion will we get an advanced version of a top gun a starring Tom cruise maybe called a son of a gun or will cruises career be finished before the f-22? a the c.-17 military transport $17 billion for this oversized Beauty which will make it easier to carry . Troops Here and there to police up those Little wars that May be part of the new world order. A Sasser is primarily concerned to reduce the Federal deficit. But cutting some or All of a projected big ticket outlay that he estimated at More than $85 billion Over the next three years is necessary also for the reason advanced by rep. Bob Traxler d-mich., the chairman of a House subcommittee that boldly but vainly tried to Jettison the space station. A we simply can no longer afford a said Traxler a huge new projects with huge Price tags while trying to maintain services that the american people but done to hold your breath until he and Sasser get their Way. C the new York Timestamps Over your heaps and form a Une you will be Well treated Quot a Little practical idealism Best for Long run i 4 r a _. ? a lil a n purim a nth Afri to Rittir civil ref throughout the months leading up to the persian Gulf War president Bush reiterated that a we have no quarrel with the iraqi time and again he said a your Only quarrel is with Saddam but the War that he unleashed brought death to thousands of iraqis and deprivation to the citizens of that unhappy land. Yet it left the government of Saddam Hussein still in Power a still causing problems at Home and abroad. That is an extreme example of the difficulty that dogs this presidents foreign policy and threatens to dim the accomplishments of this weeks Moscow Summit. Time and again the Bush administration has shaped its actions to Reward or punish a foreign government and has ignored or minimized the consequences for the people of that land. The dilemma is a real one and is not easy for any administration to resolve. Power realities compel us to Deal with the governments of the Day a either As allies or antagonists. But the claims of humanity or morality often tug in the other direction. Where Jimmy Carter gave priority to human rights and Ronald Reagan to ideology president Bush a world View gives far greater weight to current Power relationships National Security interests and vital resource needs. Those priorities Are not necessarily wrong. But they Are Clear a and they have consequences. Bush was Swift to lift economic sanctions against South Africa a a nation in which we have significant strategic economic and resource interests a even though the struggle for Freedom there is far from Complete. He is Adamant in opposing measures to restrict credits and Trade with China even though a Clear majority in Congress regards that governments treatment of its own citizens As unacceptable. Bush argues that his Way will increase our influence with Beijing a current rulers. He appears willing to ignore the effect of our actions on those who Are struggling for democracy in China. When it comes to the soviet Union Bush a instinct is once again to focus on the men in charge. For along time that meant no one but Mikhail Gorbachev because it was said no one else could sign the Start treaty reducing the level of nuclear warheads on both sides. Now that the treaty has been completed Bush is willing to meet with russian president Boris Yeltsin and others who Are challenging Gorbachev a monopoly on Power. Still the Hope that Gorbachev will be a cozy partner in dealing with everything from the Middle East to outer space makes Bush an unspoken advocate of the soviet status quo. Briefings by american officials suggest a great ambivalence a a yearning for stability along with a recognition that the soviet landscape is shifting at an astounding Pace. There is a Case to be made for dealing with those in Power in China South Africa and the soviet Union. By the same Token there was certainly a Strong Case for responding to the aggression of Saddam Hussein. But we should never forget the broader consequences of our actions. Ultimately it is the people of the soviet Union and China of South Africa and Iraq who will determine the future of their countries a and their relations with the United states. That is Why there is such Force in the argument a coming from critics both to the left and the right of Bush a that his foreign policy now anchored in pragmatic Short term Power considerations needs a stronger emphasis on the Lon term support of democratic forces around the world. A striking example of that left right convergence is the newly published essay by Larry Diamond called a an american foreign policy for Diamond is a senior research fellow at the Hoover institution a conservative think in leadership Council. Diamond argues that Bush needs to expand his vision in order to seize the a a once in a generation Opportunity provided by the end of the cold War. So far he observes Bush so new world order. Has seemed More concerned with order than with Freedom More committed to the stability of Borders than to the Pursuit of democracy self determination or instead of that limited Agenda Diamond proposes that a a Long term strategy of promoting democracy. Should be the Central focus the defining feature of our foreign policy a carried Forward by economic assistance to fledgling democracies and the cultivation of pluralistic institutions through the National endowment for democracy. Ultimately he argues there is no conflict Between promoting democracy and building Security. Experience has shown that democracies Are less Likely to wage War on each other and Are More Likely to Honor treaties Trade agreements and environmental compacts. A precisely because within their own Borders they respect Competition civil liberties rights of property and the Rule of Law democracies Are the Only reliable foundation on which we can build a new system of International Security and that kind of practical idealism needs to temper the Bush administration s penchant for dealing with today s Power elites. C Washington Post writers group the opinions expressed in the columns and cartoons on this Page represent those of the authors and Are in no Way to be considered As representing the views of the stars and stripes or the United states government
