From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: war is hell.
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:18:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.desert-storm
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr12.233414.3580@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
>> wars frequently distract us from
>>problems occurring at the time and divert our attention.  Do you disagree
>>with this?
>
>Whose attention?  There are hundreds of millions of people in this country,
>and you can be sure they are not all paying attention to the same thing.

I think this is a given.  "Collectively", people have a tendency to worry
about their immediate problems vs. their long term problems.  Abram Maslow
and numerous other sociologists will agree with me on this point.

> I
>suppose "the public's attention", which is a code word for whatever is on
>television.  Supposing it to be true, what is the problem with "the public"
>not paying attention to certain domestic issues for a year or so?  Policies
>like that should be set in the long term anyway.  They are maintained by
>government structures and thus it doesn't particularly matter if "the
>public" doesn't pay attention for a short time.

The problem is that some problems cannot be ignored for a short time.  Take
one example: the environment.  Obviously, saving the environment is a long
term problem and cannot be solved by a quick fix.  However, I think it is
somewhat assinine to say that we can blow the problem off for a year like
it didn't exist.  The fact is, when people's attention is concentrated on
a war, they are less likely to be concentrating on other "long term" problems
which need that attention.  This is especially true for government agencies.
Don't believe me?  Look at the department of energy.  For the last God
knows how many years during the cold war, the department of energy's budget
consisted mainly of ways to use nuclear energy.  This included everything
from power plants to bombs.  A very small part of their budget was concentrated
toward things like alternative fuels and improving efficiency of other
fuel types. (Other than nuclear energy)

>>  Look at the popularity George Bush gained as a result of
>>desert storm.  He gained this popularity, DESPITE his almost total lack
>>of concern for domestic issues and policies.  The American public is not
>>stupid and they know that Bush hasn't helped them much on the domestic front.
>
>This is not really a topic for this group, but you might consider that some
>of the people who support Bush are anti-big government and thus don't think
>anything much _should_ be done "on the domestic front".

This might be true, but you should also note that the American public has
been screaming the past few months as they feel Bush is ignoring the
home front.  Obviously, these supporters are becoming fewer and fewer. 
(As you said, this should probably be out of alt.war  Therefore, I directed
all follow-ups to alt.desert-storm)

>>I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that George started the Persian
>>Gulf conflict as a means of raising his approval ratings, but I think you
>>would also be going out on a limb by saying it wasn't in the back of his mind.
>>Obviously, something as complicated as conflict is not entered upon for one
>>simple set of reasons, is it?
>
>Accusing a politician of doing things so he will be re-elected is like
>accusing a fish of swimming.  It is a "hard constraint" on leadership in a
>democracy.  The question is not whether the fish will swim, but where it
>will swim.

You have an excellant point.  However, the question should be raised of
"how far is the fish willing to swim to raise his popularity."  I think
that George really believed in what he was doing when he started desert storm,
but I don't think he was some type of knight in shining armor.  I find it
hard to believe that his motives were simply "Our Kuwaiti allies need our
help."  The US government has acted in too inconsistent a manner to believe
that this argument holds any H2O and that it was the only reason we were
in the Middle East.

>I was personally quite pleasantly surprised by the way in which Desert Storm
>was handled.  I didn't think anything like what we eventually did could be
>done; nor did almost any of the media at the time.  I recall seeing comments
>like "well, what can we do, send in the Marines?" used as sarcasm.  Bush was
>treated with quite a bit of skepticism for promising that the invasion of
>Kuwait would be reversed.  Now of course it is regarded as having been
>inevitable.

You are certainly not in the minority with your support.

>Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
> "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat."
>		-- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987

-Jon Anderson


  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  
Newsgroups: alt.war