OPINION
LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD LJWorld.com Monday, April 8, 2013
8A
War-weary nation wary of Syria
EDITORIALS
Risky business City officials should take a look at ways to help protect local police officers against violent attacks.
T
hree times last week, Lawrence police officers have been injured while making arrests. First, we should thank these officers for their service. The recent statistic should focus attention on the abuse that members of our police force take and the dangers they face. Then we should get busy to see what can be done to reduce the violence directed at them. We can’t know whether these three incidents represent a trend. We can speculate that they could be connected to the increased presence of methamphetamine abuse in our community, as described in Journal-World news stories. Violence often accompanies this particular form of drug usage, so there may be a link. The most recent incident happened Tuesday as police responded to a burglar alarm. It should be noted that one charge lodged against the assailant was possession of a controlled substance. Although follow-up treatment was required, the officer’s injuries did not appear to be serious, but in other cases, such violence has resulted in injuries that forced officers into retirement. Battling with police officers cannot be tolerated. These men and women deserve the community’s respect and support. Their assailants, if convicted, should get the strongest sentences that judicial guidelines allow. And Lawrence needs to give more attention to dealing with the range of effects that increased drug use is having on the community. Ignoring it or looking the other way is not the answer. Law enforcement needs our backing. The newly elected Lawrence City Commission should make it a priority.
OLD HOME TOWN
100
From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World for April 8, 1913: “The Baldwin City Election held today was not the quiet afYEARS fair that everyone had expected. AGO There was only one ticket in IN 1913 the field that the general public was aware of until this morning, when the women of the city appeared with a ticket headed by Mrs. Jennie McMillan for Mayor and Mrs. Allerdice and Mrs. Kuhn for council-women. … The men who had predicted a quiet election were forced to get extremely busy and only succeeded in electing their candidate by 44 votes. The election returns show one woman to have been elected on the ticket, Mrs. Allerdice as council-woman.”
ISTANBUL — Talking with members of Congress at a gathering here last week was an education in the public’s wariness of new foreign entanglements — especially in Syria. It was a reminder that the post-Iraq era is only beginning, and that it may limit America’s ability to exercise power for the next few years. The great advantage (and on occasion, disadvantage) of the House of Representatives is that its members are so close to their constituents. Most of them spend
David Ignatius
davidignatius@washpost.com
“
Obama recognizes the national war fatigue and made it a subtle centerpiece of his bid for re-election. He was emphatic about bringing troops home from Afghanistan and do ing nation-building at home, rather than abroad. ”
every nearly weekend back home in their districts. So they know what the public is thinking in a personal way that’s sometimes missing in Washington foreign-policy debates. The discussion here arose during an off-the-record conference organized by a Washington group. One of the topics was possible U.S. involvement in Syria, and it provoked an intense conversation. Many members from both parties made clear how uneasy they are about new U.S. adventures in this part of the world, no matter how noble-sounding the cause. “I can’t adequately describe how unwilling the American people are to get involved in another war in
the Middle East,” said one congressman. “We’re almost unable to respond,” given what the U.S. has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, said another. He described intervention proposals as “halfbaked,” and argued that “the last thing we need is something ineffective.” A third member summed up the public mood this way: “We are not just war-weary, we are war-wary.” The skeptical mood was underlined by one member who quoted former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt as saying: “The problem is that you Americans think every problem has a solution.” Well, not anymore — not after Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Republicans and Democrats expressed caution about venturing onto Syria’s slippery slope. “This is not a tragedy of our making,” warned one House veteran. He argued that countries in the region need to decide what they want. “Absent that consensus, you can’t act.” This longtime member noted that President Obama won’t be able to do much in Syria without support from Democrats: “You can’t be a war president without having a war party.” Obama recognizes the national war fatigue and made it a subtle centerpiece of his bid for re-election. He was emphatic about bringing troops home from Af-
ghanistan and doing nationbuilding at home, rather than abroad. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, opened the general-election campaign with hawkish rhetoric, but by the last debate he had so trimmed his foreign-policy positions that they were nearly identical to Obama’s. In his caution on Syria, Obama has been reading the public mood correctly. Personally, I hope the president will accept the recommendation of some of his advisers and provide training and other limited military assistance for the Syrian rebels. But he would do so without a solid base of public support, a bad way to begin any new commitment. If Obama does decide to get more involved, he will need to bring the country along with him. The big question is whether America’s war weariness will undermine Obama’s pledge to use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Iranians seem convinced that, given the public mood, Obama is bluffing. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told me pointedly in an interview last September that America was tired of the “back-breaking expenses” of foreign wars. “Will the people of the U.S. accept meddling and intervention
in the affairs of others?” he mused. “I don’t believe so.” The House members who attended the conference seemed less skeptical about military options for Iran than for Syria. That’s partly because the Iranian threat is more obvious toward both the U.S. and Israel. But given the current public mood, Obama will have to work carefully to build support for any U.S. military action against Iran — convincing people that it’s a legal and necessary use of American power. Visiting this sprawling city was a reminder of the mysterious process through which empires wax and wane. Turkey’s neo-imperial prospects seem to be rising for the first time in a century, with Turkish leaders talking about a new Ottoman hegemony in the region. America’s cloak of leadership, by contrast, seems a bit faded. One Arab politician cautioned the group: “American credibility is being doubted in this part of the world.” What the members of Congress needed to remember, he said, was that “America remains indispensable.” But when the members are back home talking to constituents on weekends, this traditional invocation of global U.S. leadership is not what they’re hearing. — David Ignatius is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
— Compiled by Sarah St. John
Read more Old Home Town at LJWorld.com/ news/lawrence/history/old_home_town.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Public Forum should be 250 words or less, be of public interest and should avoid name-calling and libelous language. The Journal-World reserves the right to edit letters. By submitting letters, you grant the Journal-World a nonexclusive license to publish, copy and distribute your work, while acknowledging that you are the author of the work. Letters must bear the name, address and telephone number of the writer. Letters may be submitted by mail to Box 888, Lawrence Ks. 66044 or by email to: letters@ljworld.com
LAWRENCE
JOURNAL-WORLD
®
ESTABLISHED 1891
What the Lawrence Journal-World stands for Accurate and fair news reporting. No mixing of editorial opinion with reporting of the news.
Safeguarding the rights of all citizens regardless of race, creed or economic stature.
Sympathy and understanding for all who are disadvantaged or oppressed.
Exposure of any dishonesty in public affairs.
Support of projects that make our community a better place to live.
W.C. Simons (1871-1952) Publisher, 1891-1944 Dolph Simons Sr. (1904-1989) Publisher, 1944-1962; Editor, 1950-1979
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Editor Mark Potts, Vice President of Content Mike Countryman, Director of Susan Cantrell, Vice President Circulation Ann Gardner, Editorial Page Editor of Sales and Marketing, Media Caroline Trowbridge, Managing Division Ed Ciambrone, Production Manager Editor
THE WORLD COMPANY
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Chairman Dolph C. Simons III, Dan C. Simons, President, President, Newspapers Division
Electronics Division
Suzanne Schlicht, Chief Operating Officer Ralph Gage, Director, Special Projects
Free expression bypasses abortion issue WASHINGTON — We know Johns Hopkins University is devoted to diversity, because it says so. Its “Diversity and Inclusion Statement,” a classic of the genre, says the university is “committed to sharing values of diversity and inclusion ... by recruiting and retaining a diverse group of students.” Hopkins has an Office of Institutional Equity and a “Diversity Leadership Council” that defines “inclusion” as “active, thoughtful and ongoing engagement with each other.” Unless you are a member of Voice for Life, an anti-abortion group. Hopkins’ Student Government Association has denied VFL status as a recognized student group, for two reasons: VFL’s website links to other organizations that display graphic images of aborted babies. And VFL plans to engage in peaceful, quiet “sidewalk counseling” outside a local abortion clinic, which the SGA considers “harassment.” Hopkins’ student conduct code enjoins students “to protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas.” And although Hopkins has a stern policy against sexual harassment, it says the purpose of this policy is not “to inhibit free speech or the free communication of ideas by members of the academic community.” Presumably that also applies to other forms of “harassment.” Suppose such SGA-recognized student groups as the Arab Students Organi-
George Will
georgewill@washpost.com
“
Hopkins’ student conduct code enjoins students ‘to protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas.’” zation, the Black Student Union, the Hopkins Feminists or the Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance were to link their websites to provocative outside organizations, or were to counsel persons not to patronize firms with policies those groups oppose. Would the SGA want to deny them recognition as student groups? Of course not. Obviously, the SGA has acted to express animus against the content of VFL’s speech, and to protect students from the discomfort of disagreement. Persons who do not want to see the images to which VFL links need never see them. Nevertheless, an SGA member says pro-life demonstrations make her feel “personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our
lives.” If encountering ideas she does not share makes her feel this way, she is unsuited to a proper academic setting. She may, however, be suited to Hopkins, which should be embarrassed, if it still can be. Hopkins’ institutional intolerance would be boring were it simply redundant evidence of academia’s commitment to diversity in everything but thought. It is, however, indicative of the increasingly extreme ambitions and tactics of those operating under the anodyne rubric of “choice.” In Florida recently, a legislative debate that reverberated in the U.S. Senate in the 1990s was revived concerning the right to choose infanticide. In 1996, the Senate debated outlawing partial-birth abortion, whereby a baby is delivered feet first until only the top of the skull remains in the birth canal, then the skull is punctured and its contents emptied. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., asked two pro-choice senators, Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Frank Lautenberg, DN.J., this: If the baby slips entirely out of the birth canal before it can be killed, should killing it still be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no. In a 1999 debate, Santorum asked Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., whether she agreed that “once the child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and
cannot be killed.” Boxer said: “I think that when you bring your baby home ... ” Sort of like driving a new car away from the dealership. But, then, what principle forbids killing a baby at home if its crying interrupts the parents’ enjoyment of Jay Leno’s monologue? Recently in Florida, Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing Florida Planned Parenthood organizations, testified against a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to babies who survive attempted abortions. Snow was asked: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Snow replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.” She added, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.” To this, a Florida legislator responded: “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on a table, wouldn’t you agree?” Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $500 million in government subsidies, is branching out, expanding its mission beyond the provision of abortions to the defense of consumers’ rights: If you pay for an abortion, you are owed a dead baby. — George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.