Editorial Dining Hall High Tide and Iraq After the Action

Author: Jonathan White

Dining Hall High Tide

Middining once again scores well in this year's release of the National Association of College and University Food Services survey. As students, the quality of the food and the range of choices, particularly at Ross, privilege us. We also praise the incredibly friendly staff in all the dining halls. It is a pleasurable part of the Middlebury experience.

One area that Middlebury performed poorly in was in the layout of the dining halls and the lack of seating. Both of these under-performing areas must be addressed in the new Atwater dining facility. Too often, the lines at Ross seem a fathom-deep, particularly at the 12:15 lunch crush. At other times, seating is beyond capacity, while the layout of the halls positions drink machines too close to entrances and exits. The result tends towards chaos, which although manageable, should be reconsidered in the current dining halls and avoided in the new facility. It would signal a simple, but appreciated step towards the improvement of an outstanding system.

Iraq After the Action

Last week's events in Iraq confirmed what President Bush has told the nation for months: that the dictator would soon be gone and that the war would be brief. We still, however, look for answers. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that we went to war over? Where is Hussein and where does the war on terror go from here?

The overriding debate, however, is the manner in which the reconstruction of Iraq proceeds. The Bush administration should welcome a role played by the United Nations. To place a government in Baghdad solely backed by Washington hazards fanning the worst sentiment that the United States seeks to once more establish itself as an imperial power. Moreover, governments backed by Washington have proven distasteful on too many occasions, from the Shah of Iran to Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

The United Nations can and should legitimize a new regime in Baghdad and the Bush administration should cooperate in the process. Taking victory as a means to act carte blanche is dangerous and we should be as sensitive and judicious in solving the problem. The decision will involve discussions with various groups who claim rights as successors to Hussein regime. It must also involve Iraq's neighbors and the world-over so that should that regime fail, the matter is of a vested interest to the international community. Finally, American willingness to consider other points of view should help dissolve concerns that this war is motivated by a Halliburton fixation to control Iraq's natural resources.

Our generation has a major interest in this matter. The rebuilding of Iraq will shape political and social affairs in that nation and region for years. If we are to make amends for anti-Americanism in the Middle East, it must be through a well-thought and fair reconstruction of the nation of Iraq and its government. Throughout the process, too, we should be guided on all fronts by humanitarianism towards the Iraqi people.

Finally, bellicose rhetoric towards Syria is counterproductive. This type of confrontation diminishes the American case for involvement in the region as much as did raising American flags over Hussein statues in Baghdad last week. Before the war on terror goes any further in over-confidence by prodding Damascus, pressing needs of order, government, food and water in Iraq predominate.