there is no peace without justice -...

Nebraska ReportOCTOBER 2004 VOLUME 32, NUMBER 8

There is no Peace without Justice

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

‘I Like Ike’ p. 6

Why They ‘Hate’ Us p. 7

UNO Afghan Center:The Perversion of a Public

Institution of Higher Education p. 8

From the Bottomby Sally Herrin p. 12

Latin America Briefs p. 2

The High Cost of War p. 4

Hagel Defends Dissent overBush’s Iraq Policy p. 5

Arms Trade/StratCom Axis p. 5

inside:inside:inside:inside:inside:Nebraskans for Peace941 ‘O’ St., Ste. 1026Lincoln, NE 68508

For the first time in over two decades, the Nebraska Repub-lican Party is being forced to simultaneously fend off seri-ous Democratic challenges in both the 1st and 2nd Congres-sional Districts. What progressive voters choose to do withtheir votes in the upcoming November 2 election could wellimpact the outcome of these two contests. The board of theNebraskans for Peace Political Action Committee (NFP/PAC)evaluated these races in the context of both the state’s elec-toral history and the current political situation in making thefollowing recommendations.

Nebraska’s reputation as a Republican stronghold, asany longtime resident can tell you, dates back more thanhalf a century. The party’s dominance in presidential poli-tics in the state is downright dynastic. The last time a Demo-crat carried the state and won Nebraska’s electoral voteswas 40 years ago, when Lyndon Johnson defeated BarryGoldwater in the 1964 election. And you have to go backanother 28 years before that, to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s land-slide reelection in 1936, to find another Democratic winner.Nebraska has the notoriety of being the most Republicanstate in presidential elections of any state in the country forbetter than 50 years. Even Nebraska’s proportional methodof awarding electoral votes based on the outcome in eachcongressional district (rather than on the statewide totalunder the ‘winner-take-all’ system practiced virtually ev-erywhere else) didn’t enable Bill Clinton or Al Gore to winan electoral vote in the state.

Democratic congressional candidates, during this sameperiod, haven’t fared much better. While the Nebraska Demo-cratic Party has been remarkably successful when it comesto statewide races for governor and the U.S. Senate, elec-tions to the House of Representatives have been few and

far between. The last time a Democrat went to Congress inthe 1st Congressional District was 1964, riding on LBJ’s coat-tails. No Democrat has been elected in what’s now part ofthe 3rd District since the 1950s. Only the 2nd CongressionalDistrict has had any luck electing a Democrat to represent itin recent history. John Cavanaugh served for two termsfrom 1976-1980 and Peter Hoagland served for three termsfrom 1988-1994.

This is not, of course, to suggest that electing Demo-crats is any sort of panacea. Nebraskans—and Nebraskansfor Peace members in particular—have endured a seeminglyunending string of politically and economically conserva-tive Democratic politicians: Exon, Zorinsky, Kerrey and nowNelson. As one of the NFP/PAC board members regularlypoints out, policy-wise “the Democrats are only about tenyears behind the Republicans” in their drift to the right. Theplatform and positions of the Green Party’s candidates farmore closely reflect the values of NFP than the DemocraticParty’s do.

Nevertheless, we live in a world of harsh political reali-ties rather than lofty political ideals, and no one has anyillusions about the Greens coming to power any time soon.While NFP members may spiritedly debate whether the two-party ‘duopoly’ in this country constitutes little more thanchoice between ‘the lesser of two evils,’ none of us wantanother four years of Republican control of the executivebranch and both Houses of Congress.

Fortunately, the choices in this year’s congressionalraces are much more agreeable. Rep. Doug Bereuter’s retire-ment in the 1st District offers the best opportunity we’vehad in decades to elect a Democrat to that seat. And the

NFP/PAC CongressionalNFP/PAC CongressionalNFP/PAC CongressionalNFP/PAC CongressionalNFP/PAC CongressionalDistrict EndorsementsDistrict EndorsementsDistrict EndorsementsDistrict EndorsementsDistrict Endorsements

continued on page 3

“The Role ofIntelligence

in theWar on Iraq”

Ex-CIAAnalyst

RayMcGovern

on

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 310

Lincoln, NE

Phone: 402-475-4620/Fax: 475-4624nfpstate@nebraskansforpeace.orgwww.nebraskansforpeace.org

ANNUAL PEACE CONFERENCE

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 20049:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M.Augustana Lutheran Church

38th & LaFayette in Omaha

(See Back Page for Details)

OCTOBER 2004 NEBRASKA REPORT, P.2

Nebraskans for Peace Membership…I want to ____ BEGIN ____ RENEW MEMBERSHIP

$35 Individual $25 Introductory (new member only) $50 Household $10 Student/Low income

I want to PLEDGE $_______ per: month quarter year

NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION ONLY: $10/year

Payment method: check cash credit card

MasterCard/Visa # _____________________________________________

Expires _________ Signature ____________________________________

Name (print) _______________________ Phone (_____)______________

Address _____________________________________________________

City ________________________ State _____ Zip ___________________

Moving? Send us your new AddressMoving? Send us your new AddressMoving? Send us your new AddressMoving? Send us your new AddressMoving? Send us your new AddressName (print)______________________________________________

Old Address _____________________________________________

City _______________________ State _______ Zip ______________

Old Phone # _____________________________________________

New Address______________________________________________

City _______________________ State _______ Zip ______________

New Phone #______________________________________________

Nebraska ReportNebraska ReportNebraska ReportNebraska ReportNebraska ReportThe Nebraska Report is published nine times annually by Nebraskans forPeace. Opinions stated do not necessarily reflect the views of the directors orstaff of Nebraskans for Peace.

Newspaper Committee: Tim Rinne, EditorMark Vasina, Sarah Disbrow, Bud Narveson, Marsha Fangmeyer

Typesetting and Layout: Michelle AshleyPrinting: Fremont Tribune Circulation: 6,500

Letters, articles, photographs and graphics are welcomed. Deadline is the firstof the month for publication in the following month’s issue. Submit to: NebraskaReport, c/o Nebraskans for Peace, 941 ‘O’ Street, Suite 1026, Lincoln, NE 68508.

Nebraskans for PeaceNebraskans for PeaceNebraskans for PeaceNebraskans for PeaceNebraskans for PeaceNebraskans for Peace is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization workingnonviolently for peace with justice through community-building, educationand political action.

State Board of DirectorsState Board of DirectorsState Board of DirectorsState Board of DirectorsState Board of DirectorsSayre Andersen, Holly Burns, Maureen Connolly, Henry D’Souza, Bob Epp(Treasurer), Marsha Fangmeyer, Michael Gordon, Christy Hargesheimer, LeahHunter, John Krejci (Secretary), Rich Maciejewski, Carol McShane, Tara Muir,Patrick Murray, Paul Olson, Byron Peterson, Del Roper, Deirdre Routt, LindaRuchala, Jay Schmidt, Jeanette Sulzman (Vice President), Mark Vasina (Presi-dent), Sue Ellen Wall, Virginia Walsh. Tim Rinne (State Coordinator), BeccaKaiser (Outreach Coordinator & Office Administrator), Susan Alleman (Mem-bership Coordinator), 941 ‘O’ Street, Suite 1026, Lincoln, NE 68508, Phone: 402-475-4620, Fax: 402-475-4624, Email: [email protected]; CaryVigneri (Omaha Coordinator), P.O. Box 3682, Omaha, NE 68103, Phone: 402-453-0776, Email: [email protected].

LLLLLatin America Briefsatin America Briefsatin America Briefsatin America Briefsatin America Briefscompiled by Christy Hargesheimercompiled by Christy Hargesheimercompiled by Christy Hargesheimercompiled by Christy Hargesheimercompiled by Christy Hargesheimer

Foreign Firms Illegally Operating Mexican FranchisesTransnational petroleum companies, including British Petroleum, Shell and Exxon Mobil,are illegally operating Pemex service stations throughout Mexico, using third parties to fileownership papers. The energy sector is a constitutional national monopoly in Mexico andforeign corporations are prohibited from ownership, yet foreign companies reportedlyearn U.S. $260 million dollars annually running Pemex gas stations. Pemex reported be-tween 80 and 120 stations that are likely operated with foreign capital. But Pemex authori-ties are turning a blind eye to this illegal practice, part of the Fox administration’s plans toquietly privatize important parts of the energy sector. For example, British Petroleum re-portedly controls 40 stations using the name Energia de Servicios, whose registeredowners worked in BP’s Houston offices until January of this year.

Mexican Environmentalists Demand GMO ReportIn late September, Mexican environmental groups demanded the official release of a

report on genetically modified foods that calls for strict control of GMO seeds. The reporthas been delayed four times in the face of opposition from U.S. companies and the BushAdministration. The U.S. $450 million report recommends that Mexico end imports oftrans-genetic grains and restrict U.S. corn imports of ground corn. Academics affiliatedwith the tri-national Commission for Environmental Cooperation finished the report onJune 7, but the Fox Administration refuses to release it. The Mexican daily newspaper LaJornada obtained a copy of the report recently.

Meanwhile, production of basic grains, mainly corn, beans, sorghum, barley andvegetable oils increased by 11.7 percent between 2000 and 2003, according to AgricultureMinister Javier Usabiaga. Highly subsidized agricultural imports from the U.S. have largelyundermined Mexico’s national grain markets, so the substantial production increases areprobably the result of increased production for self-consumption.

(Source: Mexican Solidarity Committee, 9/28/04)

Haitian Floods Lead to Desperate Food SituationThe floods that killed more than 1,500 people in mid-September also washed away

much of the country’s harvest, plunging an already desperately poor nation deeper intohunger. Haiti only produced 45 percent of the food it consumed before the floods. Aidorganizations are now worried that number will drop to even more critical levels because ofhundreds of acres of farmland that were flooded and thousands of farm animals killed.‘’Most of the harvest [in the flooded regions] has been destroyed,’’ said Guy Gauvreau, ofthe U.N.’s World Food Program. ̀ `The level of self-sufficiency for Haiti will go down from45 percent to 35 percent at least, maybe worse. It’s getting critical that this country beginsto support the farmers to produce more.’’ The World Food Program and CARE Interna-tional are providing emergency food aid to women and children in Gonaives.

(Source: Miami Herald, 9/28/04.)

World Hunger Summit Ignored by U.S. MediaSome 60 heads of state attended a World Hunger Summit at the United Nations

headquarters in New York on September 20. The meeting, the day before the annualopening of the U.N. General Assembly, was largely organized by Brazilian president LuizInácio Lula da Silva, backed by Chilean president Ricardo Lagos, French president JacquesChirac, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and U.N. Secretary GeneralKofi Annan. “How many more times will it be necessary to repeat that the most destructiveweapon of mass destruction in the world is poverty?” Lula asked the summit, which hehoped would establish a mechanism for raising the $50 billion a year experts considernecessary to end hunger in the world.

In the end, 113 nations signed on to the “Declaration on Action Against Hunger andPoverty,” which calls for taxing weapons and financial transactions; joint efforts to fighttax evasion and tax havens; and a credit card scheme that would direct a small percentageof transaction charges to the hunger fund. The U.S. declined to sign, and the U.S. mediagenerally ignored the summit. U.S. agriculture secretary Ann Veneman explained that forthe administration of U.S. president George W. Bush, “global taxes are inherently undemo-cratic.” (BBC News 9/20/04; La República (Lima) 9/21/04 from EFE; Left Margin 9/24/04via portside.org; Miami Herald 9/22/04, 9/23/04; Radio France Internationale 9/21/04)


Unlike Doug Bereuter, who voted forthe war on Iraq but then acknowledged hismistake, or Republican Senator ChuckHagel, who has been relentless in his criti-cism of Bush’s Iraq policy from the begin-ning, Osborne has been utterly unrepentantabout this massive and deadly debacle. Themore the body count rises, the closer heappears to be hewing to the party’s conser-vative political line. He’s undoubtedly work-ing to solidify his activist right-wing basein a run-up for the governor’s race two yearsfrom now. But while he’s obviously willingto spare no expense to bring ‘law and order’to Iraq, Rep. Osborne has had absolutely

Democratic nominee, State Senator MattConnealy, is the most credible, well-fundedcandidate the party has fielded since 1978.In the 2nd Congressional District, another ex-perienced legislator, State Senator NancyThompson, is the strongest challenger theparty could have put forward against thearch-conservative Republican incumbentLee Terry. Throughout their Unicameral ca-reers, both of these Democratic candidateshave repeatedly demonstrated their supportfor issues of importance for Nebraskans forPeace: social services, public education andequitable tax policy. Connealy—besides be-ing a strong advocate for family farm agri-culture—has provided legislative leadershipon immigrant rights and the lawlessness inWhiteclay, and Thompson has been an out-spoken leader on health care coverage andaffordability, particularly during the statebudget crisis.

Nevertheless, while in agreement withNFP on many issues, neither of these Demo-cratic candidates are wholly satisfactory froma purely NFP issue orientation. But a major-ity of the NFP/PAC board believes that thisis an election that does not allow for simplyadding up who is in the most agreement withour organization on the issues. Rather, thiselection requires further political judgment.With these candidates, will the door be opento progressive issues supported by NFP? Isthere some chance of positive change—andsoon? Can voting for these candidates helplimit the damage being wrought by the po-litical Right?

For example, while Connealy andThompson’s positions on national and in-ternational policy would be significant im-provements over those of the Republicansthey are seeking to replace, they do not ingeneral reflect the views of either Nebras-kans for Peace or their Green Party oppo-nents. Both NFP member Steve Larrick, the1st District Green Party candidate, and DanteSalvatierra, the 2nd District Green Party nomi-nee, have policy positions that philosophi-cally mirror NFP’s own. They are both com-mitted activists dedicated to fundamentaleconomic, political, social and environmen-tal change. There is no question that theyare kindred souls politically, the kind of cou-rageous, straight-talking candidates we haveso often wished for.

Unfortunately, neither of them havebeen able to effectively reach out to the elec-torate as viable candidates during this elec-tion. This means the candidates who NFPmembers may find most in sync with theirphilosophies are engaged only at this pointin a meritorious effort to reinforce ThirdParty candidacies and talk about issues nototherwise on the mainstream radar screen.The NFP/PAC board commends the Green

Party candidates for boldly going forwardto point us toward a better world—one allNFP members are seeking every day.

But we believe in this election year ourprogressive votes can make a key differencein who is elected, and for good reason, notjust in widening the electoral options. Ac-cordingly, a majority of the NFP/PAC boardhas opted to issue a joint “Philosophical/Pragmatic” endorsement in these two con-gressional campaigns. Green Party candidateSteve Larrick gets the NFP/PAC “philosophi-cal” endorsement, and Democratic candidateMatt Connealy is the “pragmatic” endorsee.In the 2nd District, Green Party candidateDante Salvatierra gets the philosophical nod,and Democratic candidate Nancy Thomp-son is our pragmatic choice.

We realize this approach is unlikely tosatisfy everyone, Democrat or Green… Froma hardcore Democratic perspective, we went‘too far’ and should simply have rallied toConnealy and Thompson’s candidacies.And from a Green vantage point, we didn’tgo ‘far enough.’ We compromised on ourprinciples and allowed ourselves to getcaught in the ‘two-party trap’ yet again. Inresponse, we can only reiterate what we saidabove: namely, that we are committed to ex-panding the electoral framework to includeprogressive Third Party choices like theGreens, but that no one wants to see theRepublican domination of both the execu-tive and legislative branches continue. ADemocratic president, no matter how pro-gressive, will find it impossible to governwith any effectiveness whatsoever if boththe House and the Senate remain in Repub-lican hands. Another four years of Bush andCheney in the White House and continuedRepublican majorities in Congress will in-variably lead to Republican domination ofthe judiciary as well, with all the appoint-ments that will be made to the judicial branchof government.

As for the 3rd Congressional District,the outcome is pre-ordained. Rep. TomOsborne will waltz to reelection over boththe Democratic and the Green Party candi-dates. Neither Democratic nominee DonnaAnderson nor the Green Party’s RoyGuisinger have the financial resources toseriously challenge Osborne (and the over-whelming Republican edge in voter regis-tration in the 3rd District makes it all mootanyway). “Philosophically,” however, weknow that both of these candidates are ab-solutely in sync with Nebraskans for Peaceas they are both members of NFP. Althoughit will not affect the outcome of the race, weencourage our supporters in District 3 tocast an important protest vote againstOsborne’s lurch to the political right by vot-ing either Democratic or the Green.

NFP/PAC,NFP/PAC,NFP/PAC,NFP/PAC,NFP/PAC, conclusionconclusionconclusionconclusionconclusion

nothing to say about the lawlessness in hisown congressional backyard at Whiteclay.This 3rd District town hasn’t merited amoment’s attention from the congressmanwho would be governor. On November 2,voters in District 3 have a golden opportu-nity to register their discontent with CoachOsborne’s disappointing performance byvoting either Democratic or Green in the 3rd

District congressional contest. It is our op-portunity to send a message for the 2006election. We urge you to send it.

The NFP/PAC board is comprised of MarkVasina, D. Milo Mumgaard and Tim Rinne.

NFP/PAC EndorsementsNFP/PAC EndorsementsNFP/PAC EndorsementsNFP/PAC EndorsementsNFP/PAC Endorsements

Roy GuisingerGreen Party

Donna AndersonDemocrat

33333

11111st Congressional Districtst Congressional Districtst Congressional Districtst Congressional Districtst Congressional DistrictPhilosophicalPhilosophicalPhilosophicalPhilosophicalPhilosophical PragmaticPragmaticPragmaticPragmaticPragmatic

Steve LarrickGreen Party

Matt ConnealyDemocrat

PhilosophicalPhilosophicalPhilosophicalPhilosophicalPhilosophical PragmaticPragmaticPragmaticPragmaticPragmatic

Dante SalvatierraGreen Party

Nancy ThompsonDemocrat

22222 nd Congressional Districtnd Congressional Districtnd Congressional Districtnd Congressional Districtnd Congressional District

rd Congressional Districtrd Congressional Districtrd Congressional Districtrd Congressional Districtrd Congressional District


The human and financial costs of the Iraq War continue toclimb. Since the beginning of the war in March 2003, morethan 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died, three times the numberthat died in the first Persian Gulf War. More than 85 percentof those soldiers died since the President declared an endto major combat. More than 7,000 soldiers have beenwounded, 15 times the number wounded in the first GulfWar.1 Many of these soldiers have suffered permanent, dis-abling injuries.

Nearly 170,000 reservists and National Guard troopsare currently on active duty compared to 50,000 prior to theIraq War.2 These part-time soldiers are taken away from theirfamilies and jobs for long periods of time.

The American taxpayer pays the financial costs of thiswar—Congress has already allocated $150 billion for thewar.3 More will be needed as instability grows and hostili-ties escalate:• Attacks on U.S. and other troops in August averaged

90 per day, five times the level of last winter.4

TTTTThe High Cost ofhe High Cost ofhe High Cost ofhe High Cost ofhe High Cost of WWWWWararararar

• Every day two U.S. soldiers are killed and 30 arewounded.5

• The number of insurgents in Iraq may havequadrupled since last year.6

• Crude oil production in Iraq is only two-thirds ofwhat it was pre-war.7

• The Administration requested Congress inSeptember to shift money allocated for Iraqireconstruction to security, a move indicatingtrouble, according to some Congressionalleaders.8

• A U.S. intelligence report provided to the BushAdministration in July concluded a gloomyoutlook for stability in Iraq, including thepossible outbreak of a civil war.9

Beyond 2004, the financial needs of this war mayconsume another $4 billion per month.10

Another strategy is possible. These same experts pointto the non-military security tools that are being short-changed. They argue that billions of dollars could be shiftedfrom military spending to other security needs. For example:• Increase funding for the container inspection program

to prevent dangerous materials from entering Americanports.20

• Increase funding for nonproliferation to keep nuclearmaterials out of the hands of terrorists.21

• Strengthen international intelligence sharing and policework, which has been the key to many of the realsuccesses against terrorism since 9/11.22

• Provide technical assistance to other governments sothat they may crack down on sources of terroristfinancing.23

Sources: 1 Dept. of Defense, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (DoD DIOR). 2 DoD, press releases, various dates. 3 Analysis of legislation providing funding for Iraq War; includes military operations and war-relatedspending. 4 O’Hanlon, M. and A. Lins de Albuquerque, ‘Iraq index: tracking variables of reconstruction and security in post-Saddam Iraq,’ Brookings Institute, updated September 20, 2004. 5 Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. 6 O’Hanlonand Albuquerque. 7 Ibid. 8 New York Times, ‘Senators see budget shift on Iraq as sign of trouble,’ Sept. 15, 2004. 9 ‘National Intelligence Estimate’ as discussed in news sources such as Reuters, ‘U.S. intelligence offers gloomy outlookfor Iraq,’ Sept. 16, 2004. 10 Projection based on Congressional Budget Offices estimates and actual spending. 11 Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. 12 Based on DoD DIOR estimates and methodology. 13 State breakdown based on statepayment of taxes data from the IRS. 14 State share of an estimated $50 billion per year to remain in Iraq. 15 DoD, ‘National Guard and Reserve units called to active duty,’ Sept 15, 2004.

Is the United StaIs the United StaIs the United StaIs the United StaIs the United States Saftes Saftes Saftes Saftes Safer?er?er?er?er?

Tools of Defense24 (outlays in billions of dollars, FY2005)

$474

$32 $30

Military Non-military Homeland Security

Military: Seven times as much money as homeland and all other non-military security combined.

Another strategy is possible. These same experts point to

the non-military security tools that are being shortchanged.

They argue that billions of dollars could be shifted from

military spending to other security needs. For example:

Increase funding for the container inspection

program to prevent dangerous materials from

entering American ports.20

Increase funding for nonproliferation to keep

nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.21

Strengthen international intelligence sharing and

police work, which has been the key to many of the

real successes against terrorism since 9/11.22

Provide technical assistance to other governments

so that they may crack down on sources of

terrorist financing.23

Many experts argue that the Iraq War and emphasis onmilitary strategies is putting the U.S. at greater risk. Currentpolicies have:• Weakened international institutions and reduced

capacity to work in cooperation with allies and othersto prevent terrorism16

• Served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda17

• Neglected homeland security needs and nonprolifera-tion efforts18

• Diverted attention away from Afghanistan, where thesecurity situation has deteriorated over the past sixmonths19

Sources: 16 Gershman J. and FPIF Task Force on Terrorism, ‘A secure America in a secure world,’FPIF, September 2004 at http://www.fpif.org/papers/04terror/index.html. 17 International Institute forStrategic Studies as widely cited, such as in P. Bennis and IPS Iraq Task Force, ‘Paying the price:the mounting costs of the Iraq war,’ IPS and FPIF, June 2004 at http://www.ipsdc.org/iraq/costsofwar/index.htm. 18 See Gershman et al., and Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the UnitedStates, ‘A unified security budget,’ FPIF and CDI, March 2004 at http://www.cdi.org/news/mrp/Unified-Budget.pdf. 19 Sedra, M. ‘Afghanistan: democracy before peace?’ FPIF Special Report,September 2004. 20 Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the U.S. 21 Ibid. 22 Gershman etal. 23 Ibid. 24 Based on Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2005,Public Database and Mid Session Review, FY2005. © 2004 National Priorities Project, Inc.Tools of Defense24 (outlays in billions of dollars, FY2005)

The costs of war in the U.S.:

1,035 soldiers killed11

7,245 soldiers wounded12

$152.6 billion for what Congress has allocated so far13

Another $50.0 billion more for each year the U.S. remains beyond 200414

167,356 Reservists and National Guard troops on active duty15

Military Non-Military Homeland Security

Prepared by the National Priorities Project, September 2004Prepared by the National Priorities Project, September 2004Prepared by the National Priorities Project, September 2004Prepared by the National Priorities Project, September 2004Prepared by the National Priorities Project, September 2004wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.costofw.costofw.costofw.costofw.costofwararararar.com.com.com.com.com ••••• wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.na.na.na.na.nationalprioritiestionalprioritiestionalprioritiestionalprioritiestionalpriorities.or.or.or.or.orggggg


Despite his dutiful endorsement ofGeorge Bush’s reelection at theRepublican National Convention andhis position as an honorary co-chairof the president’s campaign here inNebraska, Sen. Chuck Hagel hasrefused to let party loyalty muzzle hiscriticism of the administration’s Iraqpolicy. Last month, in fact, Nebraska’ssenior senator forcefully defended theright and necessity for public dissentin interviews with the Nebraskamedia.

“You don’t get a policy that iscrisp and clear and worthy of ourgreat young men and women who arefighting over there,” he stated,“unless you probe, unless you askthe tough questions, unless youcome at this in recalibrated ways…We have to make sure our policy is asgood as it can be. Second best is notgood enough, is not good enough,”he emphasized, “when you’re puttingour men and women in harm’s way.”

Hagel’s outspoken and unrelent-ing criticism of the BushAdministration’s Iraq policy, datingback well before the preemptive attackin March 2003, has rankled many ofhis Republican colleagues, not to

mention Rush Limbaugh. As a member ofthe Senate Foreign Relations Committee,he repeatedly challenged the WhiteHouse’s justifications and haste in goingto war and, after the president announced“the end of majorcombat,” resumed hispublic critique about therisks and dangers of theadministration’s Mideastpolicy. It was his frankassessment on CBS’s“Face the Nation”September 19 though,that the U.S. is not“winning” in Iraq and themission there is in “deeptrouble,” that hasproduced the biggestoutcry. Coming just sixweeks before the election,those comments have spurred conserva-tive critics and party loyalists to accusehim of everything from undermining thepresident’s reelection to encouraging theenemy and damaging troop morale.

The decorated Vietnam War veteranhowever has unapologetically defendedhis right to speak his mind. He refuses, hesays, to be a “potted plant in the corner”that sits silently and just goes along with

the plan and opposes the “mindless,bumper-sticker slogan, ‘Well, you’ve gotto support the troops.’” “Of course wesupport the troops,” Hagel counters.“That’s not an issue here. This idea that if

you dare question policy,you’re being disloyal toyour party or yourpresident or hurtingAmerican troops ormorale is completelyunreasonable. I will notlook away because ofpolitical loyalties. I willnot allow myself to beheld hostage to politicalrhetoric. If I did, I wouldfail the people just likemany members ofCongress failed thepeople during the

Vietnam war.” The rapidly deterioratingsituation in Iraq, he stresses, requires a“crisp, sharp analysis of our policies. Wedidn’t do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11years of casualties mount to the pointwhere we finally lost.”

Hagel has sent a private four-pagememo to Secretary of State Colin Powelland National Security AdvisorCondoleezza Rice with ideas for policy

changes in Iraq. Among his recom-mendations is that the U.S. and theinterim Iraqi government reach out tothe neighboring Arab nations forassistance. “If we are to succeed inIraq and get to the next stages ofdemocracy, regional allies and Arabneighbors have to be part of stabiliz-ing Iraq.” These countries, he says,must actively assist Iraq with eco-nomic investment and developmentand help train the country’s newpolice and security forces.

The White House, he saysthough, must act quickly. A classifiedestimate developed by the NationalIntelligence Council and presented tothe president this past summerwarned that Iraq could be facing thepossibility of full-fledged civil war bythe end of 2005.

Despite all the mistakes that havebeen made, Hagel believes the U.S.simply dare not fail in its efforts tocreate a democratically run govern-ment in Iraq. “We have so much atstake here that we can’t afford aloss… It would be devastating to thesecurity of the United States, theMiddle East, all over the world.”

HAGEL DEFENDS DISSENT OVER BUSH’S IRAQ POLICY

Senator Chuck Hagel

The United States retained its title as theworld’s top arms dealer in 2003, cornering ahefty 57 percent of the international armstrade. Russia, the nearest competitor, was adistant second, with a mere 17 percent ofthe total sales. According to the Congres-sional Research Service (the Library of Con-gress entity that annually tracks weaponsdeals), the U.S. sold about $14.5 billion inarmaments last year, up nearly a billion over2002’s $13.6 billion total. And, as in the past,developing nations continued to be the pri-mary market. Even as the Bush Administra-tion was pledging to export freedom anddemocracy throughout the developingworld (particularly in Islamic countries), U.S.arms manufacturers were avidly hawkingtheir wares to such ‘democratically chal-lenged’ nations as United Arab Emirates,Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Singaporeand Kuwait.

To the casual observer, promoting theproliferation of conventional weapons in thevery part of the world we’re simultaneouslytrying to wage a “War on Terror” might seemcounterproductive. Dangerous even. After

all, in just the last 25 years, we’ve seen un-democratic governments that the U.S. hadlavishly armed and equipped (Iran under theShah, Iraq under Saddam and the Taliban inAfghanistan) turn from valued allies to mor-tal enemies almost overnight. One wouldthink that, lucrative or not, more arms salesto the autocratic regimes in this volatile re-gion is the last thing our government shouldbe encouraging.

But that’s to misunderstand the natureand purpose of the Military-Industrial Com-plex: namely, to exacerbate the very problemit purports to be seeking to solve. Peddlingall these tools of death and destructionabroad obliges us in turn to beef up our se-curity at home. An enhanced defense athome, however, can only be justified by anever-present threat from abroad. It’s an end-less cycle, which continually serves to bol-ster the power of the Pentagon as it pro-duces huge profits for the defense industry.

It comes as no surprise then that Strat-Com, which in the wake of 9/11 has seen itsmission expanded to include conventionalas well as nuclear warfighting duties, has

been slated for a $213 million makeover—courtesy of Lockheed Martin—to ready itfor its new role. The Bethesda, Maryland-based defense contractor, according to anAugust 26, 2004 news report, has beenawarded “a 10-year, $213 million contract todevelop the new architecture and functionsfor the Integrated Strategic Planning andAnalysis Network (ISPAN), a network-cen-tric mission planning and execution system.ISPAN will support the full spectrum ofStratCom’s new responsibilities for globalstrike, missile defense and information op-erations, in addition to their traditional roleof nuclear deterrence.”

In tech-speak language that could havecome right out of George Lucas’s “Star Wars,”ISPAN will integrate “a number of legacysystems into a new, streamlined mission plan-ning architecture, [allowing StratCom] com-manders to monitor worldwide situations inreal time, assess potential threats or areas ofinterest, and then plan and support execu-tion of a swift response in coordination with

regional Combatant Commanders.” StratComwill be able “to collaboratively plan its new,growing missions through an integrated, flex-ible command and control system. The sys-tem will enable them to reach out to sys-tems, sensors and forces worldwide to planfor time-critical strikes, computer networkoperations, space operations and global in-tegrated missile defense,” said Leroy Jeter,director of USSTRATCOM programs forLockheed Martin. Jeter added that, “We’reextremely pleased to be supporting the Com-mand on this transformational effort.”

He should be. This latest contractcomes on the heels of an earlier $1.5 billionproject at StratCom that’s still in progress,and no doubt contributing to thecorporation’s reported sales of $31.8 billionfor 2003. Work will be performed at Strat-Com on Offutt Air Force Base, as well as at anew Lockheed Martin facility in Bellevuethat, in a further blurring of the lines be-tween military and industry, will be built tosupport ISPAN and other local programs.

ArArArArArms Tms Tms Tms Tms Trrrrrade/Sade/Sade/Sade/Sade/StrtrtrtrtratCom AxisatCom AxisatCom AxisatCom AxisatCom Axis


this crucial block. As many of these swingers aremoderate Republicans, it would be helpful to reachinto GOP’s recent history to find fodder for discus-sions about the choices we must make on electionday. Fortunately, numerous past and presentRepublican leaders have provided a foundation onwhich we can build a persuasive Republican critiqueof President Bush’s destructive policies.

In his famous 1961 Farewell Address, PresidentDwight D.

Eisenhowerprovided an uncannyguide for understanding the destructive forcesguiding the current administration. A key element ofIke’s farewell warning, made at the end of his half-century of distinguished public service, wasconcern over the influence of the rapidly growingmilitary sector of the economy. As Supreme Com-mander of the Allied forces that liberated WesternEurope in 1945, Eisenhower was a real military herowho knew war, the challenge of Communism and theimportance of U.S. strength. However Ike alsounderstood, perhaps better than any other presi-dent, the immense and potentially uncontrollable

power of a collusive military establishment and civilianarms industry. In his address, Ike warned that thegrowing power of the “Military-Industrial Complex”uniting the interests of powerful defense contractorswith policymakers in Washington and leadership in thePentagon could, if left unchecked, lead to a “disastrousrise of misplaced power over the councils of govern-ment.”

Obviously, Ike’s parting insight has been ignored bythe current administration. With no meaningful militaryexperience, President Bush assumed office a novice atunderstanding and controlling the Military-IndustrialComplex’s influence on national security issues.Consequently, he has relied on the counsel of more

seasoned hands, especially those of Vice PresidentCheney and a handful of advisors, to guide adminis-tration policy in this key area. Unfortunately, DickCheney’s experiences and influence embody andvalidate Ike’s concerns about the power of anunchecked Military-Industrial Complex on vitalquestions of national security.

Despite his Lincoln roots, Cheney is careerWashington insider. Beginning in the late 1980s,he assumed several key positions that allowedhim to amass enormous power over nationalsecurity policy. As head of the Defense Depart-ment during the first Bush Administration,Secretary Cheney initiated reforms that led to asmaller U.S. military. In addition to fewer boots onthe ground, downsizing meant cutting non-

essential services and programs and allowingprivate companies to bid on government contracts

that would, in theory, save a bloated DefenseDepartment some serious money.

After the first Bush Administration, Cheney easedinto a position leading the Halliburton Corporation, amultifaceted, multinational conglomerate of companiesthat annually receives billions of dollars of, surprise,those same government contracts. CEO Cheney was ableto use his insider knowledge of a changing U.S.military’s needs to position Halliburton to profit from thenew opportunities his downsized military required. Andfinally, as chief advisor to the current President Bush,Vice President Cheney has emerged as the key voice inthe president’s inner circle, emphasizing pre-emptive warand military-driven nation building as key foreign policystrategies.

By shifting between roles as military reformer,military contractor, and finally key military policymaker,

‘I Like Ike’The Military-Industrial Complex & Modern Republicanism

conclusion on page 9

by Jeff Cole

Lincoln NFP member Jeff Cole spent the summer inCentral Europe, where he had the opportunity to heara European perspective on the Bush Administrationand the upcoming presidential election.

After returning from Central Europe this summer, Iread the pieces on Vice President Cheney’s visit to Lincolnin the July/August Nebraska Report with a combinationof anger and frustration. The anger emerged as CreightonUniversity Law Professor Michael Kelly’s summary re-minded me of the Bush/Cheney Administration’s dismalthree-and-a-half-year record in international affairs. Notthat I needed much reminding. Living beyond the com-fort of the U.S. media zone, I quickly realized howAmerica’s global standing has diminished underthis presidency. To go from unbounded sympa-thy for the U.S. following 9/11 to unprecedentedopposition to our questionable, unilateral ac-tions is quite a feat. To paraphrase a true war-time leader, rarely in the course of human his-tory have so few squandered so much soquickly.

My frustration comes in part from my in-ability to understand how, despite its increas-ingly obvious failures, so many Americans canremain supportive of this administration. Pre-dictably, core Bush-Cheney supporters (radi-cal evangelicals, multi-millionaires) remain loyal.Fortunately, they are a small minority; albeit apolitically sophisticated, empowered minority.More frustrating is the larger segment of support-ers whose interests are at odds with this administra-tion on so many issues who nevertheless will eagerlyvote Bush in November. Their continued support of thisadministration is a testimony of the success of “Team W’s”media-savvy branding effort—despite any connection be-tween the brand identity they are selling and theadministration’s policies.

Thankfully, there are enough likely voters outside ofthese dependable Bush backers to return him to hisCrawford stage set in November. As we enter the finalweeks of this presidential campaign, the importance ofthe “swing” voter is growing increasingly obvious. Inthe last election enough of these undecided voters, tiredof Clinton’s ethical lapses and the strangely uncertainGore campaign, swung toward the untested yet moralistgovernor of Texas. If progressives are to regain theWhite House in November, they must reclaim more of

OCTOBER 2004 NEBRASKA REPORT, P. 6


The White HouseWashington, DC 20500Comment Line: 202-456-1111202-456-1414202-456-2993 (FAX)[email protected]. Chuck Hagel346 Russell Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510202-224-4224202-224-5213 (FAX)402-476-1400 (Lincoln)402-758-8981 (Omaha)308-632-6032 (Scottsbluff)hagel.senate.govSen. Ben Nelson720 Hart Senate Office Bldg.Washington, D.C. 20510202-224-6551202-228-0012 (FAX)402-391-3411 (Omaha)402-441-4600 (Lincoln)bennnelson.senate.govRep. Doug Bereuter (resigned)1st Congressional District2184 Rayburn HOBWashington, DC 20515202-225-4806202-225-5686 (FAX)402-438-1598 (Lincoln)www.house.gov/bereuterRep. Lee Terry1524 Longworth HOBWashington, DC 20515202-225-4155202-226-5452 (FAX)402-397-9944 (Omaha)leeterry.house.gov/contact.aspRep. Tom Osborne507 Cannon HOBWashington, DC 20515202-225-6435202-226-1385 (FAX)308-381-5555 (Grand Island)www.house.gov/writerep/Capitol Hill Switchboard202-224-3121State Capitol Switchboard402-471-2311State Senator, District #State CapitolPO Box 94604Lincoln, NE 68509-4604Governor Mike JohannsPO Box 94848Lincoln, NE 68509-4848402-471-2244402-471-6031 (FAX)[email protected]

PoliticianPoliticianPoliticianPoliticianPoliticianContactsContactsContactsContactsContacts

Ray McGovern, the career CIA analyst whowill be the keynote speaker at the October16 Annual Peace Conference in Omaha,wrote this trenchant analysis of the 9/11Commission’s final report immediately uponits release last July. As McGovern, whoseintelligence responsibilities used to includepreparing the “President’s Daily Brief” andchairing National Intelligence Estimates,points out, the Commission’s report was asnotable for what it didn’t say as for what itdid. Missing was any meaningful discus-sion of the motivation behind the attack, or“why they ‘hate’ us.” This article origi-nally appeared on TomPaine.com July 26,2004 under the title of “What Price Una-nimity?”

The 567-page final report releasedThursday by the 9/11 Commission providesa wealth of data—indeed, so much detailthat it is easy to get lost in the trees andmiss the forest. Comments by the ubiqui-tous commissioners over the weekend leavethe impression either that they themselveshave no window on the forest, or that theywould like to keep the rest of us in the trees.

Commission vice chair Lee Hamiltonbraced yesterday with an unusually bluntquestion by Wolf Blitzer that pretty muchgave the game away. Blitzer expressed inter-est in why the commission had no recom-mendation regarding Iraq; he suggested,perhaps, “Don’t go to war with countriesthat had nothing to do with 9/11.”

Caught somewhat off balance, Hamiltonexplained that dealing with the issue of Iraq“would have been highly divisive,” and thatcommission members would not have beenable to agree on a recommendation. Then,recovering quickly, Hamilton gave the offi-cial answer; i. e., that discussing Iraq wouldhave been “well beyond any reasonable in-terpretation of what we were supposed todo.”

Thankfully, the perceived limits on thecommission’s mandate did not prevent itfrom putting the final nail in the coffin inwhich lies the ‘scarytale’ favored by VicePresident Cheney that Iraq and al-Qaida werein bed together. Nor, curiously enough, didthose limits prevent the commission fromleading off its policy recommendations withones regarding Pakistan, Afghanistan andSaudi Arabia.

One can perhaps be forgiven for beingstruck at the incongruity of the commission’ssilence on Iraq, with 140,000 U.S. troops tieddown there and terrorists breeding like rab-bits.

The commission’s desire to avoid un-pleasantness shows through even moreclearly as the final report tiptoes past a coreissue—motivation. Chartered to “prepare afull and complete account of the circum-stances surrounding the September 11, 2001terrorist attacks,” the commission mighthave been expected to devote considerableeffort to discerning the “why” of the at-tacks—especially for those among us whoremain impervious to the dumbed-down bro-mide about the terrorists hating our democ-racy.

A Good Stab at the WhyIf you read page 147 of the commission

report carefully, you will not miss a key sen-tence throwing light on the motive of KhalidSheikh Mohammed, whom the report labelsthe “mastermind of the 9/11 attacks”:

“KSM’s animus toward the UnitedStates stemmed not from his experi-ences there as a student, but ratherfrom his violent disagreement with U.S.foreign policy favoring Israel.”

A footnote points out that his state-ments regarding the “why” of attacking theUnited States echo those of Ramzi Yousef,his nephew, when he was sentenced in NewYork to a prison term of 240 years in Janu-ary 1998. Yousef, mastermind of the 1993

bombing of the World Trade Center, accusedthe United States of supporting Israeli ter-rorism against Palestinians, adding that hewas proud to fight any country that sup-ports Israel.

Hats off to commission staff for shoe-horning that in—and to the commissionersfor letting it slide. Highly unusual prose forestablishment Washington.

And another bravo for the attempt togo beyond jingoism in addressing “why theyhate us.” On page 374 begins a section titled“PREVENT THE CONTINUED GROWTHOF ISLAMIST TERRORISM.” There theauthors pick up on the conundrum expressedby Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld re-garding whether the United States is gener-ating more terrorists than it is killing, andwhether the United States needs “a broad,integrated plan to stop the next generationof terrorists.”

In gingerly language, the report pointsout:

“America’s policy choices haveconsequences. Right or wrong, it issimply a fact that American policyregarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflictand American actions in Iraq aredominant staples of popular commen-tary across the Arab and Muslimworld.”…or, in the vernacular, “It’s thepolicy, stupid!”

Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst au-thor of Imperial Hubris: Why the West isLosing the War on Terror , emphasizes thatBin Laden’s “genius” is his ability to exploitU.S. policies—first and foremost, our one-sided support for Israel—that are most of-fensive to Muslims, and notes that it is par-ticularly difficult to have a serious debateregarding U.S. policy toward Israel.

As if to prove Scheuer right, Commis-sioner Bob Kerrey yesterday on ABC’s ThisWeek recited a familiar mantra: You cannotnegotiate; you cannot compromise withthose who have reached the conclusion thatterrorism is their only option.

I was reminded of Rumsfeld’s complainton the same program some months ago:“How do you persuade people not to be-come suicide bombers; how do you reducethe number of people attracted to terrorism?No one knows how to do that.”

I find myself hoping that Rumsfeld,Kerrey and others will read and ponder theimplications of what is said on pages 374and following of the 9/11 commission report.

Annual Peace ConferenceSpeaker Ray McGovern

WhyWhyWhyWhyWhy Us Us Us Us UsTheyTheyTheyTheyThey ‘Hate’‘Hate’‘Hate’‘Hate’‘Hate’

OCTOBER 2004 NEBRASKA REPORT, P.8continued on page 10

The UNThe UNThe UNThe UNThe UNO CentO CentO CentO CentO Center fer fer fer fer for Afghanisor Afghanisor Afghanisor Afghanisor Afghanistttttan San San San San StudiestudiestudiestudiestudiesThe PThe PThe PThe PThe Pererererervvvvvererererersion of a Public Inssion of a Public Inssion of a Public Inssion of a Public Inssion of a Public Institution of Higher Educationtitution of Higher Educationtitution of Higher Educationtitution of Higher Educationtitution of Higher Education

Thomas Goutierre, hasserved as director of theUNO Center for Afghan-istan Studies for all but

two of its 32-year history.

The following report on the University ofNebraska-Omaha Center for AfghanistanStudies was prepared by the Center forPublic Integrity in Washington, D.C. in mid-2003 as part of its “Windfalls of War” in-vestigation. Over the course of its three-decade-long history, this public institutionattached to the state’s university system hasopenly collaborated with the CIA in expel-ling the Soviets from Afghanistan, withUnocal’s efforts to build a privately-ownedoil pipeline across the country and withthe Taliban government’s policies of Islamicextremism and discrimination againstwomen. Although housed at a taxpayer-sup-ported institution of higher education andunder the jurisdiction of an elected Boardof Regents, the UNO Center is runningamuck, openly perverting the principles ofacademic teaching and research in the cra-ven pursuit of corporate and political in-fluence. For a glimpse of the sordid under-belly of international power politics, Ne-braskans need look no further than theirown backyard. Nebraskans for Peace callsupon the University of Nebraska Board ofRegents to establish a code of ethics withregard to the UNO Afghan Center and allother like entities to compel them to abideby the standards of a Tier One academicinstitution.

BackgroundThe University of Nebraska at Omaha

is home to the Center for Afghanistan Stud-ies, which was established in 1972 and iscurrently the only academic program in theUnited States exclusively concerned withAfghanistan affairs. It receives almost all ofits funding from outside sources; the uni-versity pays for several employees’ salaries.

From its start until 1978, UNO partici-pated in an exchange program with KabulUniversity. But after the 1978 pro-Sovietcoup, the Afghanistan programs stopped.

It wasn’t until 1984 that the Center re-ceived its first USAID (U.S. Agency for In-ternational Development) contract to pro-vide educational training programs and fa-cilities to Afghan refugees. The Center con-tinued the educational programs until themid-1990s, receiving more than $60 million

from USAID.Although USAID funded the Center’s

educational and training efforts in Afghani-stan, the CIA helped to design and imple-ment the overall program in an effort tostrengthen resistance against the Soviet oc-cupation.

“The CIA was involved in a kind of co-vert assistance to the resistance to fightagainst Soviets,” Raheem Yaseer, assistantdirector, told the Center for Public Integrity.

The Center, with USAID funding, es-tablished offices in Pakistan to train and edu-cate Afghan refugees, who had formedseven mujahedeen resistance groups.Yaseer said the Center’s edu-cational work helped the re-sistance against the Sovietoccupation.

“We helped all of theseseven parties with schoolhistory supplies, developingcurriculum, paying teachers,teacher training and man-power training,” Yaseer said.“They were taught aboutlove for the country, love forfreedom, hating the Sovietoccupier.”

The Soviets left Af-ghanistan in February 1989.

In October 1997,Gouttierre told the OmahaWorld-Herald that the CIAwas involved in the overallprogram but did not directlyprovide money to him or theCenter.

For ten years, the Center received mostof its Afghanistan education project fund-ing from USAID. But after Congress endedgovernment-sponsored aid to Afghanistanin the mid-1990s, USAID stopped fundingthe Center. Still, it wasn’t without fundingfor long.

In 1997, Unocal, an American oil com-pany, stepped in with an offer. Unocal hopedto facilitate a business relationship with theTaliban in order to promote a natural gaspipeline project. The company was the de-velopment manager for the seven-memberCentral Asia Gas pipeline consortium thatalso included Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil, In-

donesia Petroleum, three other companiesand the Turkmenistan government.

Unocal offered the Center an up-to-two-year contract worth as much $1.8 million totrain Afghan men to build pipeline, whichwould run from Turkmenistan through aTaliban-controlled portion of Afghanistanto Pakistan, where it would be marketed. Thepipeline could also be extended into India.

“For its land-locked Central Asianneighbors, Afghanistan is a strategicallylocated ‘commerce corridor’ to the ArabianSea,” Marty Miller, Unocal’s vice president,said in prepared testimony for the SenateForeign Relations Committee in 1997. He tes-

tified at a hearing before thesubcommittee on NearEastern and South AsiaAffairs when the CentGasproject was still underway.

“They [Unocal]wanted to pave the roadand create a good feeling,”Yaseer told the Center forPublic Integrity. “Theygave us about $900,000 [upto $1.8 million for twoyears] to conduct man-power training and trainpeople in crafts, carpentry,masonry, electric and build-ing.”

As the Center for Af-ghanistan Studies begantraining civilian men, it alsoinvited key Afghan officialsto visit the university. In

December 1997, Unocal sponsored a meet-ing that brought Taliban ministers to theUnited States, including the minister of minesand industry, the minister for culture andinformation and the minister for planning.The Taliban’s U.N. representative alsojoined the visiting group. During their stay,they went to Unocal’s facilities in Texas, vis-ited the State Department and toured theUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha. In May1998, two Taliban ministers again visited theuniversity on a Unocal-funded trip. Publicoutrage over the partnership soon erupted.

On June 1, 1998, women’s rights orga-nizations, including the Feminist Majority,the National Organization for Women andthe Women’s Alliance for Peace and Free-

dom in Afghanistan, voiced their concern ata Unocal stockholders meeting. Newspapersnationwide covered the issue. Four dayslater, Unocal announced it would not renewits contract with the Center.

On Aug. 7, 1998, al-Qaida operativesbombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Soon,Unocal announced that it would put the pipe-line plan on hold.

In a press release announcing the with-drawal from the project, Unocal said it would,however, continue to provide “humanitar-ian support and skills training to Afghani-stan through CARE and the University ofNebraska at Omaha.” The oil companyadded that neither program was designed toprovide pipeline construction skills training.

The Center trained 400 Afghan men be-fore Unocal unexpectedly pulled out of thecontract.

“They were hot for it then, but they gaveup,” Yaseer said of Unocal. “But [the 400Afghan men] all have their own businessesnow, so it was a useful program.”

Yaseer said the Center hopes to workwith whomever ends up building the pipe-line by training Afghans in vocational skills.He said the pipeline project is very compli-cated now because more companies are in-terested in being part of the consortium.

“If American companies get it, probablywe will have a chance,” he said. “We willjust be interested in training in vocationalskills and increasing their chances of get-ting employment with the pipeline.”

Although the 1997 contract with Unocalended, public scrutiny and questions aboutthe university’s connections to the Talibancontinued, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001,terrorist attacks.

On January 29, 2002, as the U.S. bomb-ing campaign on Afghanistan slowed down,USAID awarded the Center $6.5 million toprovide books and training for Afghanistan’sinterim government to resume schooling.The Center, which has a textbook publish-ing operation in Pakistan, was to print 8 mil-lion books and train 4,000 teachers for anestimated 750,000 students by the schools’starting date, March 23.

USAID employee Chris Brown told theOmaha World-Herald that the Center was


‘I Like Ike’over the past 15 years Dick Cheney has become the typeof leader that Ike feared. The bloody debacles we arewitnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting in part fromtoo few boots on the ground and too heavy a reliance onprivate contractors and local militias, reflects the mis-placed power that private business interests within theMilitary-Industrial Complex hold. The much publicized $18billion, no-bid contract, one of many Halliburton and itssubsidiaries have received for work in postwar Iraq, is alogical requirement of an over-extended army dependenton private contractors. Due to the structure of theMilitary-Industrial Complex that Dick Cheney helped tobuild, the policies he helped shape and the strategies hesupported, many more budget-busting Halliburton-styledcontracts are sure to follow as the U.S. military remainsalone and engaged in a hostile world.

Unsurprisingly “budget busting” contracts are nothigh on the vice president’s list of concerns. This isanother area where Eisenhower’s insights are lost on thecurrent administration. In a second key point of hisFarewell Address, Ike admonished leaders who would,despite the demands of difficult times, fail to “avoid theimpulse to live only for today, plundering, for our ownease and convenience, the precious resources of tomor-row.” “We cannot,” President Eisenhower continued,“mortgage the material assets of our grandchildrenwithout also risking the loss also of their political andspiritual heritage.”

It takes little imagination to envision how PresidentEisenhower and traditional, fiscally conservative Republi-cans would react to record budget deficits supported byBush and Cheney. According to President Bush’s formerTreasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, Cheney feels that pastRepublican budgets have proven that “deficits don’tmatter.” Obviously President Bush shares that view, as hehas managed to turn a 2001 budget surplus of $100 billioninto a record $400-plus billion deficit in 2004. With suchmounting debt what is this administration’s chief eco-nomic priority? To make permanent the temporary tax cutsthat helped thrust us into this budget debacle. Amazing.As former President Nixon’s Secretary of Commerce PeterPeterson puts it, “this administration and the RepublicanCongress have presided over the biggest, most recklessdeterioration of America’s finances in history.” Byignoring the long-term budgetary consequences of theiraggressive security policy, Bush-Cheney have irresponsi-bly set America on a course that is fundamentally at oddswith mainstream America’s desire for a government thatlives within its means.

With the remarkable parting observations by our ownretiring Representative Doug Beureter, and frequentcomments by Senator Chuck Hagel, Nebraskans’ mostdistinguished Republican leaders show how theadministration’s penchant for playing fast and loose withthe facts has weakened America’s standing in the worldand reduced rather than increased our national security.Congressman Bereuter’s criticism of the administration’sunilateral rush to war in Iraq is an area that Ike wouldheartily second. President Eisenhower spent much of hiscareer fighting the unilateralist/isolationist wing of the

Republican Party while championing a foreign policybased on traditional conservative principles of containingrisk, consensus diplomacy and support for a balance ofpower that embeds American values in a system ofinternational treaties and alliances. President Bush hasarrogantly turned his back on this tradition and, in doingso, has weakened our ability to effectively and economi-cally pursue the War on Terror.

Ike also provided guidance for a way out of ourcurrent leadership failure. In concluding his FarewellAddress, he noted that “a knowledgeable citizenry cancompel the proper meshing of a huge industrial andmilitary machinery of defense with our peaceful methodsand goals, so that security and liberty may prospertogether.” So, the next time you engage in some election-year banter with a moderate Republican who hasn’t beenbrainwashed by the Bush campaign’s marketing propa-ganda, seek some common ground by moving theconversation to Ike or any of the other growing gallery ofRepublican critics of the current administration’s destruc-tive policies. Surely, Bush’s support for the goals of anaggressive Military-Industrial Complex, disregard for theburdens deficits place on future generations and destruc-tive foreign policy choices are at odds with most main-stream Republicans and a majority of likely voters inNovember.

Jeff Cole pictured with his daughters in Poland when heand his family were in Central Europe this past summer.


UNUNUNUNUNO Afghan CentO Afghan CentO Afghan CentO Afghan CentO Afghan Centererererer,,,,,

uniquely positioned to meet the textbookchallenge. After USAID stopped fundingthe Center in 1994, Thomas E. Gouttierre,Dean of International Studies and Programsand director of Afghanistan Studies at UNO,had continued to raise money privately inorder to keep the Pakistan publishing op-eration open. Thus, in 2002, the Center wasalready prepared and ready to start printingthe textbooks.

However, the content of the books,which UNO developed in the 1980s withUSAID funding, had to be censored. Crit-ics contended the books’ content, whichincluded drawings of guns, bullets andmines, promoted and strengthened an eraof jihad violence. So before distributing anymore of the books to Afghan students, work-ers at the Pakistan operation started a“scrubbing” effort to remove violent pic-tures and references.

Yaseer said the Center printed and de-livered about 15 million books on time.

But even without the violent images,the content of the books sparked contro-versy because they still contained Muslimtenets and verses from the Koran. Organi-zations that receive USAID funding mustprove that tax dollars will not be used toadvance religion. A U.S. federal appealscourt had previously ruled in a 1991 casethat taxpayer funds could not be used forreligious instruction, even overseas. Butaccording to the Washington Post, the BushWhite House defended the religious con-tent, saying its presence was necessarybecause Islamic principles permeate Afghanculture. USAID officials also publicly de-fended the religious material.

In 2003, the Center lost the USAID con-tract for Afghan educational textbooks andteacher training. The money went, instead,to Creative Associates International Inc., aWashington, D.C.-based, private company.

“We were very disappointed,” saidCenter director Thomas Gouttierre, whoseorganization has been involved in Afghani-stan education projects since 1973. “Weinvested our hearts in Afghanistan over along period of time.

“Maybe it’s possible that AID waslooking for a different approach that theythought would be provided by a for-profit.The trends seems to be in favor of for-prof-its.”

Yaseer said efficiency and quality aresecondary to politics in the process of se-

lecting companies and organizations to per-form work in Afghanistan. “It depends onwho knows who in the administration,USAID and the State Department,” saidYaseer, who worked as an English professorat Kabul University during the Soviet occu-pation.

“Universities try their best to recruit pro-fessionals, but these belt[way] bandits lookfor surcharges and just grab anybody thatcomes in handy.”

Though the Center did not get a newcontract, Yaseer said it had money left overfrom the 2002 contract and received a no-cost extension from USAID to continue train-ing teachers from its office in Afghanistan.

“I don’t think that we’re going after thatparticular [contract] again,” Gouttierre said.“Afghanistan is going through somechanges.”

Gouttierre, the Center’s director, livedand worked in Afghanistan for 10 years as aPeace Corps volunteer and Fulbright fellow.He also coached the Afghan National Bas-ketball team and served as senior politicalaffairs officer for the U.N. Peacekeeping Mis-sion to Afghanistan in 1996 and 1997.Gouttierre met Yaseer in Kabul in 1964.

Gouttierre was also a member of the Af-ghanistan Relief Committee, a private, tax-exempt group founded by former U.S. Am-bassador to Afghanistan Robert Neumannand former U.S. Ambassador to AfghanistanAdolph Dubs’ wife, Mary Ann Dubs, in 1980to help Afghan refugees.

The Boston Globe reported in 2001 that“The Center for Afghanistan Studies at theUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha haslongstanding ties with Washingtonpolicymakers and collaborates regularly withintelligence.” Gouttierre told the paper in aNov. 25, 2001 interview, “We’re at war. I’m anAmerican, and the American government isleading this war. If we have some knowledgeor analysis that could be of advantage, weshould be forthcoming.”

In 2001, UNO spent a total of $60,000lobbying Congress, the White House andother agencies on budget and appropriations,science and technology, and education. In2002, UNO spent a total of $120,000 lobby-ing Congress, the White House and otheragencies on the same issues. For its lobby-ing efforts in both years, UNO hired Wash-ington, D.C.-based firm Van Scoyoc Associ-ates Inc.

conclusionconclusionconclusionconclusionconclusion

2005Cat Lovers

Against the BombCalendar

Significant Dates for Cats and Peace PeoplePhotographs • Quotes • Moon Phases

Until Nov. 1, only $8.45 includes shipping & handling.(In Nebraska, add local sales tax.) $9.45 after Nov. 1

• Special bulk deals (we pay shipping!):6 calendars for $35; 10 for $50; 20 for $75; or 50 for $175

CAT LOVERS AGAINST THE BOMBc/o Nebraskans for Peace

941 ‘O’ Street, Suite 1026 • Lincoln, NE 68508phone 402-475-4620 • fax 402-483-4108

Toll free 877-778-3434email [email protected] or [email protected]

visit our website at www.catloversagainstthebomb.org


Make a tax-deductible gift to the

Nebraska Peace Foundation

Crete Chapter ............................................... Pat Wikel .......................... 402-826-4818Lincoln Chapter ........................................... State Office ..................... 402-475-4620Omaha Chapter ............................................. Cary Vigneri ..................... 402-453-0776Scottsbluff Chapter ..................................... Byron Peterson ............... 308-783-1412Southwest Nebraska Chapter ..................... Dennis Demmel ............... 308-352-4078Wayne/Wayne State College Chapter ........ Sayre Andersen ............... 402-375-3794Central Nebraska Peace Workers ............... Charles Richardson ........ 402-462-4794 (Grand Island, Hastings, Kearney)Contact the NFP State Office for information on the UNL, UNO, UNK, Creightonand Nebraska Wesleyan University and Hastings & Doane College Chapters

NebraskNebraskNebraskNebraskNebraskans for Pans for Pans for Pans for Pans for Peace Chaptereace Chaptereace Chaptereace Chaptereace Chapter& L& L& L& L& Local Aocal Aocal Aocal Aocal Affiliate Contact Informationffiliate Contact Informationffiliate Contact Informationffiliate Contact Informationffiliate Contact Information

Afghanistan ContractsThe State Department is funding two of

the Center’s current projects in Afghanistan.Under a $512,000, 11-month State De-

partment contract, the Center is bringing fe-male Afghan teachers to the United Statesfor training. In October 2002, a group of 13Afghan teachers, all women, spent fiveweeks in Nebraska and one week in Wash-ington, D.C. A second group of 12 femaleteachers is expected to arrive in the StatesOctober 29, 2003.

The State Department also gave theCenter $60,468 in July 2003 to re-establishthe Afghan Fulbright exchange program, aninternational educational exchange programthat President Harry Truman signed into lawin 1946. The contract calls for the Center torecruit and prepare 20 to 40 Afghan collegegraduates who will come to the U.S. to studyat various universities for six months to oneyear. It has been 24 years since Afghanshad access to the Fulbright program.

The Center for Afghanistan Studies isalso using USAID money, remaining from a$6.5 million contract it received in 2002, tocontinue its field office in Kabul, which “hasa small staff which can be readily incorpo-rated into projects intended for reconstruc-tion of Afghan education at the present orin the future,” according to the Center’swebsite. Currently, the field office staff istraining teachers.

Government TiesThomas E. Gouttierre, the director of the

Center for Afghanistan Studies, is an oldfriend of Zalmay Khalilzad, President’sBush’s nominee as ambassador to Afghani-stan and a former paid adviser to Unocal.While working for the Cambridge EnergyResearch Associates, Khalilzad conductedrisk analysis for Unocal for the proposedpipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

Gouttierre also coached Khalilzad’s bas-ketball team at Habibia high school in Af-ghanistan. That team, as well as teams fromvarious Afghan colleges, helped to form theAfghan National Basketball Team in the early1970s.

During the December 1997 Taliban visitto the United States, Khalilzad joined thegroup for its trip to Unocal’s facilities inTexas. In 1997, Khalilzad, Gouttierre andMarty Miller, Unocal vice president, testi-fied together before the Senate Foreign Re-lations Near Eastern and South Asian Af-fairs subcommittee.

In July 1999, Gouttierre gathered with adozen Afghan leaders for a confidentialmeeting, after which he submitted the firstof eight classified reports to the State De-partment.

Peter Tomsen, a former U.S. ambassa-dor to Armenia who teaches courses inAmerican foreign policy and Eurasia atUNO, was President George H.W. Bush’sspecial envoy on Afghanistan with the rankof ambassador from 1989 to 1992. He wasalso the principal deputy Assistant Secre-tary of State for East Asian and Pacific Af-fairs in the State Department, United Statesdeputy chief of mission to China from 1986to 1989 and the director of the StateDepartment’s Office of India, Nepal, SriLanka and Maldive Affairs from 1983 to 1985.

In October 2001, Tomsen told the Chi-cago Tribune that when UNO hosted Af-ghan and sometimes Taliban officials’ vis-its, it served as a neutral ground where Af-ghan leaders, who often disagreed with oneanother, could informally give informationto the U.S. government. According to theChicago Tribune, “Since 1986, spanning theearly years of post-Soviet occupation to theoppressive regime of the Taliban, the Cen-ter for Afghanistan Studies at the Omahacommuter campus has served as a back doorfor U.S. intelligence efforts to expose Af-ghan leaders to American ideas and democ-racy.”

Thomas E. Eighmy, research associatefor the Center for Afghanistan Studies, is aretired USAID officer.

Ronald Roskens, who is a former UNOchancellor, was the director of USAID inthe first Bush Administration.

—Brooke Williams

BULLETIN BOARD

To list an event, submit in writing by the tenth of the month preceding the event. Send to:Nebraskans for Peace, 941 “O” Street, Suite 1026, Lincoln, NE 68508 [email protected]

Oct. 16 Annual Peace Conference in Omaha co-sponsored by NFP and the UNO School of SocialWork. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern will deliver a keynote address on “The Role ofIntelligence in the War on Iraq,” followed by afternoon workshops on a variety of Peace &Justice issues. Advance registration, which includes lunch, is $25.00 ($10 for students/low-income) for the 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Saturday event at Augustana Lutheran Church,38th and LaFayette Streets in Omaha. Contact the NFP State Office at 402-475-4620 toregister or for more information.

Oct. 24 United Nations Association, Chapter 100 Annual Banquet. This year’s event will be held atChrist Lutheran Church, 44th and Sumner Streets in Lincoln, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Costis $18 per person. For reservations contact: John Krejci at 402-466-8460, or Vera MaeLutz at 402-464-3571.

From the Bottom From the Bottom From the Bottom From the Bottom From the Bottom by Sally Herby Sally Herby Sally Herby Sally Herby Sally HerrinrinrinrinrinThe real political spectrum isn’t right to left… it’s top to bottom.The real political spectrum isn’t right to left… it’s top to bottom.The real political spectrum isn’t right to left… it’s top to bottom.The real political spectrum isn’t right to left… it’s top to bottom.The real political spectrum isn’t right to left… it’s top to bottom.

VVVVVote Like Yote Like Yote Like Yote Like Yote Like Your Life Depended on Itour Life Depended on Itour Life Depended on Itour Life Depended on Itour Life Depended on ItRemember Jimmy Carter? Remember AlGore? You weren’t in love with THEMeither. You may have actually botheredto vote for them. You may have evengiven them money. But in the weeksbefore the elections of 1980 and 2000,when you could have been working fortheir election, you probably didn’t.Worse, you may have secretly agreedwith what the folks beating up on themhad to say, just a little. No candidate isperfect.

A bit frozen, both of them. So com-plex in their thinking that, to the rush-to-judgment crowd, they sometimesseemed indecisive. They lacked cha-risma, darn it. Why can’t all Democratsbe like Bill Clinton, so easy to love?Even when he embarrassed himself, hiswife and us, he was, as he is still, lovedby many many people. Clinton can sellhimself, and he does.

Carter and Gore, though, neededour help, in the coffee shops and lunch-rooms and bars and church basementsand DMV lines and laundromats anddecks and patioswhere the REALdebate in thiscountry takesplace. Andwhen yourn e i g h b o rsaid Al

Gore was just a Clinton puppet or when awoman in the convenience store said JimmyCarter was soft on the Russkies, you let itgo by. You didn’t say a word. And so itcame to pass that Ronald Reagan becamepresident, and the Bushes after him. That’sright, Bush the Lesser lost in 2000 and wasthe beneficiary of a fix in Florida or a fumbleby the Supreme Court, but the electionshould NOT have been that close. Way toomany people voted in 2000, as in 2002, onwhether they agreed or disagreed with acandidate’s position on some number of petissues, numbering only a handful at mostand at worst just a single issue.

That is not the same thing at all as vot-ing for a viable candidate who has the hon-est to goodness chops to do a job. TheFounding Fathers are NOT pleased. Everyprinciple they wove into the Constitution isto prevent the subversion of the best inter-est of the nation by special interests. TheFathers did not underestimate the possibil-ity that We the People could become con-fused if not misled.

Pure democracy is of course in practiceimpossible. People in a group of any size atall cannot hope to make a decision fairly,wisely AND quickly, as anyone who hasever sat through any kind of committeemeeting knows very well. The Fathers sawthe danger that We the People would justbe electing new kings. To prevent that hap-

pening, our three-hulled ship of state (leg-

islative, judiciary and executive) is modeledas a republic—a REPRESENTATIVE democ-racy. Most citizens have no interest them-selves in serving in our nation’s capital, andmost of us don’t have what it takes. Half ofus, HALF, have an IQ of under 100. TheFounding Fathers knew that (or its 18th Cen-tury equivalent), and they created a systemwhich let us locals send our best and bright-est folks to be our representatives—not toecho us, but to choose wisely for us in theinterest of the common good.

Single issue and touchstone politicshave taken our nation down a dangerousroad today. I am continually reminded of theWilliam Butler Yeats line, “The best lack allconviction, while the worst/Are full of a pas-sionate intensity.” The worst man, today, ISfull of a passionate intensity, which he usesto spin an overworked and undereducatedpublic with a handful of emotional issues,masking his complete misrepresentation ofU.S. foreign policy, the tax system and hisown record.

The best man, though, doesn’t lackconviction. He’s just a lantern-jawed vet-eran, with prep school manners and Euro-pean connections, a man of actual valor andgreat intellectual gifts developed over thecourse of a first-rate education and manyyears in Congress. He’s a jock—a hockeyplayer in fact—but he is NOT an Everyman.He is, as people from around here say, withsuch delicate restraint, DIFFERENT.

What he does lack is your help, asdo the many fine—I do not say per-fect—Democrats who grace the ballotthis fall. Kerry and other Democratsneed your money, and so much more,to counter the special interests of right-wing fanatics and their devil’s bargainwith the deep pockets of multinationalcynics who do not care if things go tohell because they are still making money.

Kerry and other Democrats needyour letters to the editor. They need youto volunteer for a sign in your yard.They need you to get out the vote, andthey need you to pray.

I don’t care if you loved RalphNader since you were eleven, or thatyou’d take secret satisfaction in theluxury of BEING a spoiler, this once. Idon’t care if every single member ofyour family IS a redneck, a Republicanor both. There’s more at stake here thandamning the failures of the Democratsand getting their attention or than mak-ing your family dinners less confronta-tional.

Global warming is here, and for allwe know, the great wars in the HolyLand (which are to come before the“Last Things”) have really begun inearnest. Without better leadership,RIGHT NOW, our nation and our worldcannot fare well. Think about it. Yourvote has never mattered more.

The New Calendar Has Arrived!(See the order information on page 10)

there is no peace without justice -...

Documents