OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2009 Page 13 Views&Opilli011 Utah State University • Logan, Utah • www.aggietownsquare.com OurVi ew AboutUS Editor in Chief Patrick Oden Holiday spirit of giving 1-IAMAD KARZAI WANTSyou IN AFGHANISTAN A s USU students, it's impossible to meander from class to class without spotting a handful of cardboard boxes generously spread throughout campus, urging holiday donations. Even in these difficult economic times, the boxes are usually stuffed to the brim with cans of tomato soup, Windex and tired-looking tennis shoes. So many of us are scouring our pockets in order to buy Mom her favorite new chick flick and Dad a replacement necktie for the current one displaying Homer Simpson in all his glory. It's remarkable the excavation work students do to find enough funds to provide for complete strangers when there are roommates and family members expecting their annual Christmas gift. USU values the principle of service and it shows through the non-stop opportunities available for us to reach out to our local community. Not only do we accumulate knowledge of 18th century literature and biomechanics during our college careers, we develop meaningful character traits through service experience. Organized donation events like The Clean Drive and Stuff A Bus started with the will of one or a few people who had the goal to make a difference for people who don't have enough money to enjoy steamy mashed potatoes and stuffing with their loved ones during the classic holiday meal. The motivation behind the generosity strictly being that some Cache Valley residents have unfortunate circumstances with needs that will not be filled if the community does not jump in. Seeing as the USU student body comprises a substantial fraction of Cache Valley, a lot of civic duty rests on the shoulders of the financially unstable. However, the lack of money in student bank accounts does not keep these people from giving what they can if it means someone who is struggling will be able to breathe easier. It seems USU students have grasped the most pure and meaningful aspect of the holidays. Is it the spirit of the holidays or the eagerness the student body has to serve on a daily basis that causes our campus to provide for numerous families during the Christmas season? Perhaps both influence students to fork over and collect thousands of canned food items for the less fortunate every year. We exhort all Aggies at the dawn of this giving season to remember what goes around comes around. A Assistant News Editor Catherine Meidell Features Editor Courtnie Packer Assistant Features Editor Greg Boyles Sports Editor Tim Olsen Assistant Sports Editor Graham Terry Copy Editor Mark Vuong Photo Editors Pete Smithsuth Tyler Larson Charity a matter of decency hether you believe in Jesus Christ, there is no denying that the holiday season has a certain zing to it. Sure, there is the commercialization and the useless gifts, but there is something to be said about the charity and the giving that is encouraged this time of year. I can recall, even from a young age, going with my brothers every Christmas Eve to anonymously leave the makings for a Christmas dinner on our neighbor's doorsteps because the family didn't have much. I never had too much growing up, but I would consider myself rich because, as comedian Maria Bamford put it, "I have a lot of stuff that I don't need." I am no saint but I do feel obligated to donate my spare change every time I walk by the Salvation Army bell ringers. I hope that I am never down on my luck and need assistance in that way, but I do know lots of good people are. There is a bill that is being considered in the Utah Legislature that would regulate more strictly the help that is given through welfare programs. The bill would require anyone that receives public assistance from Utah to be tested for drugs. According to The Deseret News, Rep. Carl Wimmer said, "If they are going on the public dole, they should be obeying all laws, including not taking illegal drugs." The logic being that public money should not be used to purchase drugs, assuming that it is used for such. However, this places the legislature in a predicament: It is trying to decide who is worthy of assistance and who isn't. Historically, the majority of people that are "on the public dole" are single parents, children, the elderly and disabled. There are sure to be many unintended consequences W to the law and some would unduly be denied aid. At what cost would we deny our own neighbors the help that they need? According to The Deseret News, there are approximately 360,000 Utahns that receive some sort of public assistance. The cost of routinely testing each and every one of them for drugs could easily be used to fund drug treatment facilities. As the deceased rapper Tupac Shakur once said, "Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs." Rather than focus on a real solution to possible drug problems, some Utah representatives are willing to fund massive drug tests because of their personal beliefs and ignore the public good. The purpose of the welfare programs is to help those who cannot help themselves. Why would we force the needy to jump through more bureaucratic hoops and make it even more difficult to receive aid? Whether people are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist or of any other denomination, they should all be able to agree on human decency and helping those in need and doing so out of charity. During this holiday season, hopefully Utah representatives can feel the non-judgmental holiday spirit and do what would benefit the collective good of Utahns. Here's hoping that our representatives declare a war on poverty, not a war on drugs. Let me know what you think, go to www.aggietownsquare.com and leave a comment. Troop surge is best of Obama's bad options s President Obama prepares to lay out his much-awaited strategy for Afghanistan on Tuesday night, all options look dicey. But after three weeks in Afghanistan and Pakistan talking to top U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani military and civilian officials, I've decided there is one least-bad option - the only one that could let us exit Afghanistan in three to five years without disaster. That is a temporary surge of about 40,000 troops along the lines laid out by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, in his report to the president. I start from the premise, affirmed by top South Asia experts, that to leave Afghanistan now would be a serious strategic error. The Afghan Taliban would seize large chunks of the country, which would sink back into civil war, with neighbors such as Iran, Russia, and Pakistan backing different factions. Afghan militants would be seen as having defeated NATO (as they did the Soviet Union). Afghanistan would again become a haven for radical jihadis seeking to attack the West or to destabilize Pakistan and get their hands on its nuclear weapons. "If the United States pulls out of Afghanistan precipitously, without ensuring the security of the population there, it will be committing a crime of unparalleled proportions, not only against Afghanistan, but against Pakistan," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a distinguished Pakistani physicist and security analyst. I agree. Yet standing still is not a viable option, either: At present troop levels, NATO is losing ground. Most Afghans don't want the Taliban back, but the militants make gains by providing rough stability and jobs, which the weak central government has not. The Taliban also make headway by intimidating Afghans, who are afraid to resist because they think the militants are winning. In Kabul today, many believe that the Taliban have unshakable momentum, and that neither News Editor Rachel A. Christensen NATO nor the Afghan government has the will to stop them. The primary goals of a troop surge would be to reverse that momentum, and to move Afghanistan toward a level of stability that its leaders could sustain with limited help from NATO. How to do this? McChrystal understands that an insurgency can't be defeated by military means alone; more troops would make it possible to funnel more economic aid to troubled regions and intensify training of Afghan security forces. A surge would also facilitate efforts to woo low- and mid-level Taliban to come in from the cold. The new troops would even improve the chances for a negotiated peace between Afghan leaders and top Taliban leaders who break with al-Qaeda. But such peace negotiations won't make headway as long as the Taliban believe they are winning and only need to wait for a NATO exit. How would the new troops be used? McChrystal would concentrate substantial numbers in the south of Afghanistan and some additional troops in the east, both Taliban havens. This could stabilize the situation sufficiently to pour in development funds and offer substitutes for poppy-growing, demonstrating a better alternative to Taliban rule. More stability would enable civilian aid officials to do an end run around the problematic central government headed by President Hamid Karzai. Funds could be funneled directly through good provincial governors, and good cabinet ministers in key areas such as agriculture and rural development, irrespective of Karzai's performance. Stability in some provinces would help promote reform at the center. A solidified NATO commitment would also encourage Afghans to do more of their own fighting. In some areas, special-forces teams would work with tribes that oppose the Taliban but were reluctant to fight because NATO support was uncertain. In other areas, villagers will be more willing to set up selfdefense forces if NATO troops back them up. A surge would also include thousands of new trainers to speed the development of the Afghan national army. This army is far from ready to take over in a violent environment; more U.S. troops would buy it time to develop in a more stable situation. In short, an influx of U.S. troops would give us a shot at creating enough stability in Afghanistan to neutralize Taliban gains, develop local security forces, and move toward a peace settlement endorsed by the country's neighbors. At that point, most NATO troops could leave, with the exception of trainers and advisers. While some believe we should leave Afghanistan and focus on securing Pakistan, I don't think the latter is possible unless we secure the former. Pakistan is already skittish about new U.S. aid or any increase in the number of American advisers. If Pakistani military officials think we are quitting Afghanistan, they will support a takeover by their old allies, the Afghan Taliban; they believe these militants would be the most Pakistan-friendly and anti-India in a chaotic, post-NATO Afghanistan. The only chance to get the Pakistani brass to squeeze the Afghan Taliban is if they believe NATO is determined to stabilize Afghanistan. Achieving such a goal will be difficult, but not impossible, and the alternatives are far more disturbing. "I want the Americans to get out of Afghanistan, but at a pace that ensures some kind of future for that country," Professor Hoodbhoy told me in a voice filled with emotion. That sounds like a reasonable aim to me. This column, by Trusy Rubin, first appeared in the Dec. 1 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Web Editor Karlie Brand About letters • Letters should be limited to 400 words. • All letters may be shortened, edited or rejected for reasons of good taste, redundancy or volume of similar letters. • Letters must be topic oriented. They may not be directed toward individuals. Any letter directed to a specific individual may be edited or not printed. • No anonymous letters will be published. Writers must sign all letters and include a phone number or email address as well as a student identification number (none of which is published). Letters will not be printed without this verification. • Letters representing groups - or more than one individual - must have a singular representative clearly stated, with all necessary identification information. • Writers must wait 21 days before submitting successive letters - no exceptions. • Letters can be hand delivered or mailed to The Statesman in the TSC, Room 105, or can be e-mailed to statesman@aggiemail. usu.edu, or click on www.aggietownsquare.com for more letter guidelines and a box to submit letters. (Link: About Us.) Online poll The Spectrum will be shaking tonight as your USU Aggies take on rival BYU. Since you know USU will win, how many points will the Aggies beat the Cougars by? • 10 or fewer. • Between 10 and 15. • Between 15 and 20. • More than 20. Visit us on the Web at www.aggietown sq uare. com to cast your vote. |