---
Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Ann Premer, Editor Jamie Holman, Business manager
Gerry Doyle, Managing editor Sara Cropper, Retail sales manager
Angie Kuhn, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Tom Eblen, general manager, news advisor Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
4A
Tuesday, February 23, 1999
Robert James Novak / KANSAN
Editorials
Clinton's pledge to Kosovo traps 4,000 troops within futile conflict
Last week, President Clinton pledged up to 4,000 U.S. troops to implement a peace deal in Kosovo.
This week in Paris, Madeline Albright will decide whether United States armed forces will conduct air strikes against Serbia or whether U.S. troops will be deployed to enforce a new Balkan peace deal.
The United States should not conduct air raids and should not deploy more ground forces to Serbia.
In 1987, Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic came to power.
In 1989, he took autonomy away from Serbia's southern province. Kosovo.
Milosevic desired a Greater Serbia, and his attempts to incorporate Bosnia and Croatia led to ethnic cleansing and the deployment of a NATO peacekeeping force, including 6,900 American troops, in 1995.
In Kosovo, citizens elected a shadow government, and oppression from the Serbs led to the formation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, known as the KLA. The KLA is a terrorist organization that killed Serbs with the intention of forcing Kosovo's independence from Serbia.
Serbian police responded by attacking the KLA and killing many civilian supporters in the same vicious style as in Bosnia.
ns led to international concern and peace talks, which started last week in Rambrouillet, France.
The United States already has 6,900 troops in Bosnia and an additional 350 in neighboring Macedonia. This mission costs the United States more than $2 billion annually. This is a huge drain on the U.S. military.
Air raids, deployment of U.S. military forces will prolong the Balkan dilemma.
According the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. military cannot afford to give pay raises, buy necessary spare parts or upgrade equipment because of a lack of funds. In light of these commitments and limitations, plunging into another broadly defined peacekeeping mission with no clear time frame or exit strategy would be foolish.
There is no national security goal for the United States in Kosovo. This conflict is a civil war that should be dealt with by the warring parties, not the United States There is fear of the conflict broadening to create a European war.
These worries are far fetched.
Spreading this conflict to U.S. allies requires many nations to be very shortsighted.
It seems unlikely that these nations would quickly go down the path to war.
We should remember that although one of the reasons American forces were deployed in Bosnia was to prevent the conflict from spreading to places like Kosovo, the conflict spread anyway.
If the United States were going to strike, it would need to establish a better policy in Serbia. By striking Serbia, our warplanes would
become the air force of the KLA.
Though Clinton has promised a limited engagement with clear objectives and exit strategies, this is unlikely.
The one-year mission in Bosnia is now headed toward its fourth year, clear evidence that Clinton's promises on foreign policy are worthless.
One major problem with military action is Russia. Serbia is a Russian ally. Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov has voiced the possibility of Russian aid to Serbia if NATO takes military action against Serbia.
As recently as Saturday, both Primakov and Boris Veltsin voiced opposition to military action in Serbia. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov echoed those sentiments yesterday. U.S. relations with Russia already are strained, and further damage could lead to stiffer Russian opposition to U.S. efforts to contain Iraq and prevent nuclear missile proliferation.
American diplomats should try for greater Russian cooperation on these key issues in exchange for U.S. opposition to air strikes.
The Serbs have expressed willingness to grant Kosovo some autonomy as long as NATO stays away.
This compromise should be accepted.
By staying out of Kosovo, the U.S. will keep its servicemen and women out of harm's way, will save billions of dollars and will allow Serbians and Kosovars to determine the fate of peace in Serbia and Kosovo.
Kansan staff
Timothy Burger for the editorial board
Ryan Koerner ... Editorial
Jeremy Doherty ... Associate editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Laura Roddy ... News
Melissa Ngo ... News
Aaron Knopf ... Online
Erin Thompson ... Sports
Marc Sheforgen ... Associate sports
Chris Fickett ... Campus
Sarah Hale ... Campus
T.R. Miller ... Features
Steph Brewer ... Associate features
Augustus Anthony Piazza ... Photo
Chris Dye ... Design, graphics
Carl Kaminski ... Wire
Carolyn Mollett ... Special sections
Laura Veazey ... News clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Matt Lopez ... Special sections
Jennifer Patch ... Campus
Micah Kafitz ... Regional
Jon Schlitt ... National
Tyler Cook ... Marketing
Shannon Curran .. PR/ Intern manager
Christa Estep .. Production
Steven Prince .. Production
Chris Corley .. Creative
Jason Hannah .. Classified
Corinne Buffmire .. Zone
Shauntae Blue .. Zone
Brandi Byram .. Zone
Brian Allers .. Zone
Justin Allen .. Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm."
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
John F. Kennedy
Guest columns Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ryan Koerner or Jeromy Derhoom at 864-4924.
If you have general questions or comments,
e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com)
or call 849-4924.
Perspective
the Family and Personal Protection Act, which will allow Kansans to lawfully carry concealed weapons.
Concealed guns furnish protection to Kansans
The Kansas Legislature has been considering what will be, for some people, the most important piece of legislation to be considered this year. The proposed law is
Who are the persons affected? That's anybody's guess. You never can tell who will be the next victim of a violent crime. Unfortunately, Kansas is one of only six states that does not provide a process by which citizens can seek to protect themselves.
Rodger Woods
Guest columnist
None of the 22 states that have adopted concealed-
Allowing law-abiding citizens to make their own choices regarding the own protection has been quite the opposite effect.
carry legislation in the past 10 years have developed feared situations similar to the Wild West.
States, such as Vermont, Indiana and Michigan, that allow qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons have homicide rates 33 percent lower and robbery rates 37 percent lower than states that do not.
Although the statistical analysis implies a decrease in crime, it shows nearly no increase of accidental shootings and less than .002 percent of license holders involved in a gun-related crime, that is not the core of the issue.
The real issue is between personal choice and emotional appeal of those who don't believe Kansans should have choices.
Certainly, carrying a concealed weapon is not for everyone. It's a matter that requires careful consideration, soul searching and should be based on personal beliefs and circumstances.
Yet, like many other personal decisions, it's one that is best left to the individual, not the state.
Indeed, the reduced likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime varies as well.
Those living in high crime areas see a much more dramatic decrease in crime than the
inhabitants of lower crime areas. People living in poor areas of Kansas are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense and have much more limited police protection than more affluent areas.
The benefits of having a firearm during a violent confrontation are much more pronounced for women than for men. Because the physical disparity between men and women is more pronounced, the equalizing effect of a firearm is greater. Why so many people are willing to causally deprive women of their single best means of self-defense really is beyond me.
Katherine Rose-Mockry, director of the Emily Taylor Women's Resource Center, said in the Kansan that because the majority of rapes and sexual violence occur between people who know each other, it's less likely that a woman would have a weapon with her.
First, knowing someone isn't the same as trusting them. Second, her statement completely ignores those who are attacked by people whom they don't know.
She went on to say that the women's center organizes self-defense workshops. Unarmed physical combat against someone much stronger, heavier and more aggressive should be a last resort.
The most troubling statement was her "concern" that a woman using a weapon during a confrontation might be charged with a crime rather than the aggressor.
I find it difficult to accept that Rose-Mockry thinks that women are incapable of determining when they are being assaulted. Second, the idea that it would be better not to defend yourself by the best means available because of a risk of legal problems, is an outrage.
To suggest that continuing to deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon is an effective means of deterring crime is completely misguided and based on fear mongering. Nearly every other state in the Union allows citizens to make their own choices on personal protection. It's time that Kansans have the same choices.
Woods is a Hutchinson second-year law student.
T they wear tight purple sweatshirts that expose robustly large gut areas. You can see them coming a mile away in their muddy Suburbans with Power Cat
Wildcat cult members looking to dominate state
their muddy Suburbans license plates. You know who they are: They are your nemeses. They are members of a cult much worse than the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate. They are members of the cult of the Kansas State Wildcats.
It used to be that you couldn't find a Kansas State fan anywhere in northeastern Kansas, or at least no one who would admit they liked that ugly purple school out in Man-
W. David Keith
opinion@kansan.com
hattan. Times are changing here in the Sunflower state. Yep, as much as we jayhawks hate to admit, the Kansas State cult is slowly attempting to usurp Kansas as the favored school, and it makes me sick.
Kansas State lies smack dab in the middle of nowhere. Well, it is near a dirty, polluted creek and a lot of cow pastures, but what isn't, in Kansas? Yes, the "Little Apple," is about as backwater of a town that you'll find in the state — except for the small town. Friend, that has gravel streets and a log cabin with a statue of John Wayne on the porch.
I bet that kids in Manhattan are just plum excited with their Atari video game consoles and their Pogo Balls. I even hear the K-State computer department is getting some Apple computers with Oregon Trail.
The one thing that keeps Manhattan residents filled with Manhappiness is their ever-loving hatred of the KU Jayhawks. Without us, they couldn't exist.
K-State cult members really are bitter people. They call us names like Gayhawks and GayU (which I guess means we're a happy college), and they really get me riled up when they compare our sports programs. Before 1990, K-State was the laughingstock of college
football, much like it is the laughingstock of college basketball now. If you talked to a K-Straighter you would think that they had won 50 National Championships in basketball and 70 in football, when in reality all they win every year is the National Livestock Judging Championship. Now that's something I look for in a university. I bet it's pretty distracting when you have your math class in the same room as the manure analyzing class.
One of K-State's campus buildings even has an indoor rodeo rink. I always thought Wescoe was missing something.
I remember back in the '80s, Willie the Wildcat was a happy little fluffy Tom and Jerry rip-off kitten that wore a white turtleneck and waved a K-State banner. Now it's a futuristic half-human/half-robot Power Cat with a too-big-for his-body head that makes him look as if he's suffering from gigantism. And that thing they do when they count his push-ups? That's really nice. They can count. It's good to see the younger cult members aren't following their older ones' example and are learning how to count.
And what is with their mascot? A purple Wildcat? That has about as much to do with the state of Kansas a red and blue bird with a big, yellow beak. Sorry, bad example.
K-State has a more "Kansas" feel to it than KU. They have lots of cattle; we have singing Hare Krishnas. They like Jeff Foxworthy; we like Carrot Top. They talk with country drawl and spit tobacco, while we talk with Chicago accents and spit out our Starbucks cappuccino when it's too cold.
It's good that we have such silly opponents in life. It's fun to look at your foes and giggle. We only can hope that the Cult of the Wildcat will realize the folly of their ways, return to their families and get some serious treatment. Until then, I will turn my head at those in purple and think of Dr. Naismith riding a pony through the Kansas prairie, and I will smile.
Keith is an Overland Park sophomore in film and illustration.
Feedback
City Commissioners deserve pay raise
The editorial board's objection to the Lawrence City Commissioners' pay increase fails to consider some important points.
Being a commissioner is a heavy burden. Commissioners spend at least 30 hours a week in meetings and doing research; therefore, one cannot hold the typical 40-hour per week job while being a commissioner.
When only making $6,000 per year, the only people who can afford to run for the commission will be those who are wealthy.
If you look at the Lawrence City Commission, you see four business people and a KU professor. These aren't exactly poor people.
Maybe they do not need the pay raise themselves, but the low pay may prevent low-income or no-income people from running.
To open the political process (historically dominated by the wealthiest of our society) to all people, decent salaries for public officials are essential.
---
Chris Hess Wichita junior
---