Thursday, January 31, 1991
Professor
about oil,
(continued from page 1)
and a couple of close calls that
have turned out favorably from
our perspective."
One of those fortunate
developments has been the
exceptional performance of the
Patriot anti-missile system,
which has warded off numerous
Iraqi Scud missile attacks since
the first days of the war.
In fact, the Patriot's good
marks may be one of the reasons
Israel has not yet retaliated for
Scud attacks on many Israeli
cities.
"An Israeli reprisal might
have made the problem much
more intractable, it might have
shattered the anti-Hussein
coalition and made America's task
much more difficult," said Hahn.
Hahn said that "It's not clear
yet if Saddam Hussein is going
to surrender, or be defeated
unconditionally with any great
ease by the U.S. and it's allies.
Certainly a lot more Americans
are going to die. We've gotten off
easily so far, in terms of
casualties. But if Bush decides to
press on to unconditional
surrender, then tens of thousands
of U.S. Gl's could be killed, as
well as hundreds of thousands of
citizens of the area."
On the homefront, the Bush
administration may face a tough
time keeping the American
public convinced that this is an
international war against Iraqi
aggression.
"Officially this is an
international effort under the
auspices of the United Nations,
and more specifically an effort of
a coalition of countries now
believes war with Iraq
democracy or freedom
numbering about 30. But for all
practical purposes it's America's
war with Iraq; I think it's
unfruitful! to think of it as a war
on any other terms. This is
George Bush's attack on Saddam
Hussein and the U.N. I
mentioned is mearly a window
dressing to give it a sense of
political and legalistic
legitimacy," he said.
According to Hahn, the
War talk: Dr. Peter Hahn makes a point
during a discussion about the war in the Gulf.
American public has already
noticed this. "There's a
groundswell of opposition to the
fact that most of the troops
committed to the Middle East are
American troops, hence the
Germans or Japanese are sending
neither enough money nor
manpower as many Americans
would like."
Hahn added that the President
has created the international force
to rally foreign support.
"I think that Bush really
The Collegian
created the U.N. umbrella more
for foreign politics than
domestic; more to mobilize world
opinion than the opinion of the
American people."
As for America's stake in the
war, Hahn believes the U.S. isn't
fighting for cheap oil or
democracy, but for less obvious
reasons.
"The United States is not
fighting for democracy or self-
determination, which are some of
our ideals or rationals of the past.
Fighting for the defense of Saudi
Arabia or the liberation of
Kuwait means we are fighting for
repressive and somewhat
medieval-style monarchies -- not
democracies or constitutional
governments."
Some analysts have even
suggested, according to Hahn,
that the price of oil may have
even gone down if Hussein been
allowed to keep Kuwait.
** A LAST STRAW **
Fresh Flowers for all your
floral needs.
Behrend Students - 10% Off
**B9B-1879**
FAST 1990 TAX REFUND
MBA Accountant
will assist in your
receiving faster 1990
Federal 1040 refunds
- ELECTRONIC FILING -
also PA returns.
- Call 864-4353 -
10% off with ID
FAST FUNDRAISING
PROGRAM
$ 1000
opi ru7
wem
Earn up to $lOOO in one
week for your campus
organization.
• Plus a chance at
$5OOO more!
•
This program works!
No investment needed.
• Call 1400.93245211
. Eat. 50 •
"The Kuwaiti's have been the
real financial wizards -- and the
Saudi's as well -- at encouraging
price hikes. The Iraqi's would
have been forced, because of their
economic underdevelopment, to
sell their oil and thus the price of
oil would have probably fallen."
The question, then, is why is
America at war?
"There are two reasons," said
Hahn. "The first is the Munich
principle, an idea based on the so
called lessons of the the 1930's
that the world community has to
respond forcefully against
aggression or the aggressor will
conclude that it is safe to make
further aggressive moves and get
away with it.
"Another reason why I think
Bush was initially drawn into the
question was the fact that Saudi
Arabia in the early days of the
crisis (last August) was
threatened by either immediate
military aggression or more long
term aggression -- perhaps an
invasion three or four years down
the road. Only Saddam himself
knows if Saddam meant to do
that. I think it would have been a
near certainty."
Hahn, along with many other
political experts, believes that
Bush's decision to "draw a line in
the sand" in August of 1990
helped set the stage for
confrontation and made war
almost inevitable.
Additionally, he believes
troops were sent in the first place
because "Saudi Arabia was a
close military ally of the United
States. There is a major air base
at Dahran on the east cost of
Saudi Arabia which the US
not
depended on for Middle East
defense during much of the Cold
War. There are probably also
millions of dollars of weapons
that the US had stockpiled in
warehouses in Saudi Arabia in an
event of war with the Soviet
Union -- all part of the rapid
deployment plan formulated
during the Reagan years."
Possible fear that Hussein
might get his hands on US
weapons and arms technology,
according to Hahn, "might have
panicked Bush into deploying US
troops to prevent that from
happening." With such weapons,
some analysts feel Hussein might
have been unstoppable, at least
until he had conquered the Middle
East and destroyed Israel.
For many, the issue is
pointless at the moment.
American troops: fathers,
mothers, sons, daughters,
husbands and wives are overseas
in a war zone. Hahn said that
while the initial phase of the war
has gone smoothly, the military
phase isn't over and may become
uglier with time.
Editor's Note: This is
the first in a two-part
interview with noted
Middle East expert and
Behrend history professor
Dr. Peter Hahn. While this
week's story centers on
events in the Gulf, next
week's installment will
focus on the political and
economic fallout of the
post-war period.
Page