Utah State University Student Newspapers | 2012-10-11 | Page 12

VieWS&Opilli011 Page 12 Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012 LIBYA: US should learn from Reagan's actions ► From page 11 developed a range of retaliatory options, including ones against the alleged sponsors: Syria and Iran. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Richard Armitage recalled, "We wanted to put a cruise missile into the window of the Iranian ambassador in Damascus." A broader range of targets in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon were also considered. However, Gen. P.X. Kelley, commandant of the Marine Corps, wondered whether attacking terrorists or state sponsors would make deployed U.S. troops any safer. As the Washington Post later reported: "The intelligence community could not assure Kelley that a retaliatory strike would have a deterrent value, making his Marines more secure. . . . Kelley concluded that the risks to his men outweighed the gains from retaliatory action." Although on November 14, 1983, Reagan authorized a joint U.S.-French retaliatory strike, for reasons that remain unclear Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger refused to authorize U.S. aircraft to take off. Thus, the largest number of U.S. soldiers killed on one day since World War II was met with no military response. President Reagan instead permitted the director of central intelligence, William Casey, to undertake aggressive covert actions against suspected terrorists in an attempt to deter future attacks. Casey — without notifying the Congressional intelligence committees — met with Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and worked out an elaborate scenario "off the books," in which the Saudis paid $2 million to hire professionals to assassinate the spiritual leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, with a car bomb. Instead, as a mosque emptied in Western Beirut on March 8, 1985, a massive car bomb exploded, killing 80 civilians and injuring nearly 200 others, but missing its intended target: Sheikh Fadlallah. The attack did nothing to deter terrorism, and was itself a clear act of terrorism using Reagan's own definition: "Why would anyone want to just park a car with a bomb in a street where they don't even know the people that are going to be killed and blow them up? That's exactly why they have the word 'terrorist." In June 1985, TWA Flight 847, carrying over 100 U.S. citizens, was hijacked between Athens and Rome. During a stop in Beirut, the hijackers murdered a 23-year-old American sailor, Robert Dean Stethem, and threw his remains on the tarmac. After the remaining hostages were eventually freed, Reagan promised that the hijackers would be "held to account" and contingency plans against Hezbollah targets we re updated. Senior military members opposed limOpinions of Americans who ited strikes; instead, have followed news of the as one general put it, attacks on U.S. embassies "If we do anything, it should be somein the Middle East: thing big." However, the chief of naval • President Obama's handling operations, Adm. of the situation James Watkins, told Approve Naval Academy 45% cadets: "Retribution and punishment are Disapprove not part of a moral 36 course and will not Don't know: 19% suffice as reasons to take action against • Mitt Romney's comments the terrorist. Rather, on the situation we should act in Approve accordance with our needs for self26 defense and protecDisapprove tion." 48 President Reagan Don't know: 26% agreed. When asked why he was Source: Pew Research Center poll of 854 not responding to adults who followed Mideast news, Sept. 13-16, 2012; margin of error: +1-3.9 the TWA hijacking percentage points with his promised C 2012 MCT Graphic: Judy Treible "swift and effective retribution," Reagan However, in April 1986, replied, "Retaliation in Reagan did retaliate some peoples' minds might against Libya for its involvejust entail striking a blow in ment in the bombing of a a general direction, and the Berlin disco that killed two result would be a terrorist American servicemen — as act in itself and the killing well as an increasing numand victimizing of innocent ber of minor U.S.-Libyan people." A senior White military skirmishes. As the House official further Washington Post headline explained: "Vengeance is noted: "Reagan's Use of not a satisfactory basis for Force Marks Turning Point." policy." A senior administration offi- Handling Mideast turmoil SAVE THE DATE!! USU Employee Flu Shot Clinic Tuesday October 16, 2011 9am-4pm USU Main Campus — Taggart Student Center Ballroom Thursday October 18, 2011 12pm-5pm Innovation Campus, Space Dynamics Lab (1695 North Research Park Way) Register yourself and all dependents for your flu shot(s): flushots.usu.edu Protect yourself against the seasonal flu this year! FREE to USU benefit-eligible employees and their eligible dependents For more information contact [e-mail] ; [phone] Etiii2012 *Remember* - Bring your Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance card to the Flu Shot Clinic If you are unable to come to one of the USU Flu Shot Clinics, you are welcome to go to a pharmacy within the BCBS network. When visiting a pharmacy be sure to show your BCBS insurance card. Shots given at one of these providers are FREE. To view a list of chain and independent pharmacies, please visit www.usu.edu/wellness. cial admitted, "The difference now is that everyone recognizes we're going to have to hit back at the terrorists." Several administration officials explicitly said that the political objective of the attack against Libya was to "teach [Moammar] Gadhafi and others the lesson that the practice of terrorism would not be free of cost to themselves," as Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger later wrote. In preparing a response, as long-time defense journalist George Wilson reported, "the Joint Chiefs looked at every conceivable military target" and "recommended against bombing targets in Libya that were not linked directly to terrorists." Ultimately, Reagan chose four targets connected to the terrorist attacks, and one target set consisting of Libyan air defenses. U.S. fighter combat aircraft successfully hit most of the targets, including the Aziziyah Barracks compound in Tripoli where it was believed the Libyan leader lived. The results were meager: Libya's infrastructure was not significantly damaged and Gadhafi survived, becoming more defiant than ever. Moreover, Libya's support for international terrorism increased in response: Libyan-controlled terrorist groups assassinated British and American hostages in Lebanon, and most significantly, blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. These examples show that a more prudent response to terrorist attacks is to understand why counterterrorism efforts failed, and how they should be adjusted and enhanced. Force is undoubtedly an essential tool against individuals directly responsible for terrorist plots and operations, and has successfully disrupted safe havens, killed suspected senior leaders and low-level militants, and raised the risks and costs of planning operations. However, the belief that drone strikes and special operations raids against terrorists or state sponsors will deter future acts of terrorism has a poor track record. President Obama faces tremendous pressure to bomb those suspected of attacking the Benghazi consulate. It would allow him to "look strong" one month before the election, provide some sense of justice for those victims' families, and serve as an act of vengeance against the perpetrators. But force won't stop another attack. - Zenko (@MicahZenko) is the Douglas Dillon fellow with the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. He writes the blog Politics, Power and Preventive Action. LDS: Membership count inflated ►From page 11 foremost being that when converts get baptized, their name is counted on the Church records as a member. When they stop going to church, their name isn't taken off — even if they never go again in their lifetime. Additionally, if a parent converts and has children under the age of eight, those children's names automatically are added to the church roster. If any existing member gives birth to a child, even if they never attend church, their names are added onto the records, and so on and so forth. If you're not from Provo, you can look at your family's ward directory and find a myriad of names that belong to people you've never even met who are supposedly members. The only way to have your name removed from Church records is to send a letter to Church Headquarters — and in my case, even when I did that, they sent a confirmation letter warning me of the dire eternal consequences of my decision and, when I confirmed that decision, a bishop to visit me at home. Regardless of the difficulty in officially leaving the Church. If the Church @Wne 4we4Introducing our new LaVie Diamond Bridal Collection. Exquisitely crafted, each piece represents the designers vision of romance and elegance. Experience LaVie.. full of life, full of love. jenfors 930 N. Main. 1.435.753.9755 can immediately send kids from the protected atmosphere of high school and straight into the even more protected mission field for two of the most formative years of their live, the chances of them leaving the church are much lower. If more youth stay in the Church, even more will serve missions — and even though the estimated convert number is only about four per missionary now, that greatly suppresses the Church's losses and will probably increase their growth numbers. Who cares though, right? Why are earlier missions a bad thing? Well for one, it empowers 18-year-old boys to think they have all the answers when they don't. It prevents them from being exposed to the real world — visiting a foreign country isn't much use when you're only there to tell the citizens to change their ways to your own. It keeps youth out of college for two very critical years in an ever-more competitive market, and it decreases their chances of being able to get scholarships, especially athletic offers. The only positive I can imagine about this change is that it finally puts young women on almost-equal footing with their male counterparts when they're actually in the field, although as far as holding real positions of authority goes, the women are still SOL because they can't hold the priesthood. So let's call it like it is. The LDS Church has changed policies, again, to suit the changing environment. They're losing members and are desperate to keep up appearances. They need more missionaries because they need more members. It's not exactly something you'd expect from a religion governed by an omniscient, eternal God, is it? - Liz Emery is a senior majoring in English with an emphasis in creative writing. Her column runs here every other Thursday. Comments may be sent to her at [e-mail] .