Politicians, pundits, activists and common folk have spouted thousands of words in recent years about the need to reduce pollution and dependence on oil by producing more efficient automobiles.  Solutions presented have primarily focused on improving the basic internal combustion engine, mandated efficiency and conservation.  There are finally serious efforts underway to develop alternative technologies such as fuel cells, turbine engines and hybrid electric vehicles which is wonderful and will eventually yield results but perhaps it's time for more direct action by the government.

Take a moment to think about how many government agencies, federal, state and local, that use mid-size or compact cars for a myriad of localized, city street transportation of one or two people for errands, inspections, deliveries (including mail), etc.  Now consider the impact on the economy, gas consumption and pollution if the majority of these government vehicles are replaced with one of the three, current production, available to the public, hybrid automobiles within the next 2-5 years.  Sure, such a large government procurement program will cost millions of dollars but perhaps the Bush administration and Congress can apply the K.I.S.S. method instead of a convoluted bidding process.

Is there really anything unethical about approaching the two manufacturers with an offer to buy a specific number of vehicles in a specific time frame at the same cost as that charged to that brand's dealers?  Is it possible for the various corporate interests and government agencies to focus on the reason behind the program while putting aside selfish corporate, agency, political or personal interests?  Will the vehicles serve the purposes that the current vehicles serve while accomplishing an immediate reduction in both gasoline consumption and exhaust emissions?  What will the effect be on the economy as a whole and in the automobile industry?

Are those questions really all that difficult to answer?  Perhaps, if the the politicians, pundits, activists mentioned above insist on lengthy studies, committee hearings and exacting "guesstimates" of the numbers.  What's so wrong with a common sense approach and minimal bureaucracy to accomplish a goal that is good for the entire country???

The Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration's actions and strategies regarding foreign policy seem to have lost all perspective and rejected common sense as a valid basis for action.  The continual rehash of details regarding Saddam Hussein is counterproductive to the interests of the United States and pointless when confronted with the facts, foremost of which is that Saddam Hussein and the former Baath Party government of Iraq never complied with the provisions of the UN cease fire resolution (Security Council resolution 687) that ended the 1991 Gulf War.  An argument in favor of decisions of President Bush and military action by the United States can be made on that basis alone; failure by the previous government of Iraq to follow the provisions of that resolution "affirming that grave consequences would follow" if the requirements of the resolution were not met.  A second compelling reason for international action in Iraq has been proven after the fact by groups inside of Iraq claiming association and allegiance to Al Qaeda, apparent confirmation of other claims in the past by the Bush administration that the previous government of Iraq was a supporter of terrorism and integral to the worldwide web of terror organizations.

The sixteen words being cited by administration critics become irrelevant when all of the factors involved are considered and only serve to draw attention and resources away from present day concerns, both domestic and international.  The Congress does have oversight responsibilities regarding foreign policy but not to the exclusion of other domestic responsibilities.  The United Nations and other countries continue to criticize and second guess US policies and actions even while they depend on the US military for security and ask for leadership in new places such as Liberia.  When will the French and German soldiers arrive in Iraq to relieve our troops so that the United States can fulfill the responsibilities of leadership as the rest of the world continues to expect?

Saturday, July 12, 2003 in the Indianapolis Star

Cartoon by Gary Varvel

Do the people living in the current U.S. "reconstruction zones" (Afghanistan, Iraq and Liberia) drink cow's milk???  According to an August 24, 2003 article in the Indianapolis Star by Tom Webb of Knight Ridder Newspapers the United States Department of Agriculture is currently storing 1.28 Billion pounds of powdered milk purchased by taxpayers through government price support programs.  According to the article, some efforts have been made to use this huge surplus in Iraq and giveaways in this country but apparently we can't give it away fast enough to reduce the surplus.  Surely there must be hungry people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Liberia...  the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank...  North Korea...  elsewhere in Africa, the Middle East and Asia...  who will welcome the gift of this commodity and thereby relieve the USDA of at least the cost of storing this mountain of powder.  This option does not ignore the people of the United States as it is better for those in need of nutritional assistance in this country to use USDA Food Stamp program to purchase powdered or refrigerated milk rather than offering giveaways of the powdered surplus.  Hmmm...  maybe we could ask the United Nations to pay the transportation cost???

The conflicts facing the world are often addressed only in military and political terms rather than from a practical and pragmatic point of view.  How much of the tension and anger involved in such conflicts would dissipate if the children go to bed each night with a full belly, in a home with indoor plumbing and electricity?  Certainly some cultures might consider such things as luxuries or even taboo but shouldn't the industrialized nations of the world offer that choice rather than only offering high minded diplomatic treaties or military might?  President Bush and L. Paul Bremer seem to have taken such an attitude but perhaps that should be the focus of our requests for help from other countries rather than military troops...  hardware and commodities that cannot be easily produced at the present time in Afghanistan and Iraq to solve immediate infrastructure problems, paid for by the donor countries as their contribution to the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.