Page 4-Wednesday, January 30, 1980-The Michigan Daily The following is a transcribed record of a conversation which took place on Monday Between Daily reporter Steve Hook and Ztfajor Joseph Blair, Chairman of the Ar- tby Reserve Officers Training Corps 4O TC) headquarters in Ann Arbor. ajor Blair has been on active duty in the rmy since August of 1965, serving under ch titles as Battalion Intelligence Officer, ank Company Commander and Battalion perations Officer. Before coming to the niversity, he was the "G-2, " or the In- tVligence Officer for a division of 17,000 msen at the Army's 4th Infantry at (4olorado Springs. : Blair served as a Chief of Counter In- telligence for the 4th infantry in Vietnam in 1967-68, and as an Alert Officer at the United Nation 's post in Korea in 1971-72. . He has spent the latter half of his career "jumping back and forth" between active military command work and instructing others in the Army about military in- telligence. Says Major Blair, "My primary specialty is tactical-strategic intelligence and my alternate specialty is education." He wishes to emphasize that his obser- vations are personal ones, and "are not of- ficial views of the U.S. Army, the Depar- tment of Defense or the University." There seems to be a widely held notion that, in times of crisis like those we are now ex- periencing, tle President is making his decisions based on conferences with leaders primarily from the military, and his decisions might reflect the inherent biases this group holds. In short, many feel his decisions might be unnecessarily hawkish. Is this a legitimate fear? Blair: Sure, I think it is a legitimate fear. I think that you have to take into consideration that he (Carter) is being advised by people on the National Security Council and there is a great representation on that. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs sits on that council, but he is more of an advisor there. The people that carry the most weight in there are going to be Brezin- ski, Vance; the State Department will have a heavy loading there, the Central Intelligence gency also is going to have a heavy loading. The President is probably the most informed airman talks of draft, Soviets, military man in the world-he's getting input from everywhere. I would say this information is as objective as anyone in the world is going to get. Men are not totally objective, you and I are not totally ob- jective-you walk in with certain biases, I have a certain bias. The men who run the CIA and the State Department, the Defensive In- telligence Agency, the Joint Chiefs, the Treasury, etc.,, are very professional people but they do have their biases. The President has got to constantly fight against this kind of bias that human beings have. Has he successfully done this, in your view? Blair: Recently he has gotten good reaction, he has received great feedback for what he has done. The American people are not asleep-we're not a bunch of sniveling lackeys in this country. The guy that pumps gas is a smart man in this country, if you compare him in general to the rest of the world. And he's a pretty clear thinker-he's got a lot of com- mon sense. So the President get's all this feed- back. Do you think women should have to register for the draft? Blair: That depends on what the legislative and executive branches come up with in regard to the ERA ... and whether they actually pass the registration in the first place. Let me put it this way, I've had women in my commands. In general, they have done a better job than the men across all spectrums except one-and that is upper body strength and run- ning. Physically, they're just not as strong as men. But in general, their performance of duty has been better than men. The Daily ran a feature two weeks ago about a political science professor at the University, Allen Whiting, who had predicted the Afghanistan invasion early last fall, and said it was a logical consequence of a series of events which began years ago. He predicts nowdthat, after "getting the Afghan government under control," the Russian troops will move back in- to the Soviet Union. Blair: They'll probably move their troops out,' but not until they have a regime well established that has the support of the people. And if we think for one moment that they're going to have freedom and liberty and the people could have expression-we're fooling' ourselves. So I'm sure that eventually they'll leave. But now we have indications in the news that they're using nerve gas. . . it sounds like they're systematically eliminating the op- position. Once they have the people's support, they'll back off and then leave. It will take them awhile, of course, because the anti- Soviets are sitting there in the moun- tains-those rebels can hide for a long time. There have already been demonstrations on college campuses protesting the proposed draft registration. Is it still too close to Vietnam to rally our nation's citizens behind military ac- tions? Blair: No, I don't think so. I don't want to make any comments about the draft-I think that's something the executive and legislative branches have got to decide on. But the United States people are not asleep-there are many many college students across the country who have said that if there was registration they would register, and if there was a draft they would go to serve. I think there needs to be some alternate proposals for those who can't adjust to military life. I've helped process a lot of conscientious objectors in rmy years. Should we go to the Olympics? I would support whatever the President wants to do. I've wavered back and forth on this, I've had all kinds of thoughts. Maybe we ought to go and let our Olympic people show their stuff. Plus it would increase com- munication between us and the people of the' Soviet Union. Plus the athletes would come back and say. "Hey, do you know what it's like in Moscow? Do you know what life is like, I've talked to these guys." And they would come back and there would be an interchange. At the same time, I see a problem with giving sup- port to the Soviet Union, saying "Youtgo ahead and invade Afghanistan if you want to and we don't really care, we'll go along with business as usual." After hearing all these debates, per- sonally I am ready to support the President And professionally I always support the President because he's' Commander in Chief, and what he decides is what I support. Does it seem to you that as a nation we are confusing this situation as a U.S.-U.S.S.R. con- flict when, as reflected by the 108-10 United Nations vote condemning the Soviet actions, what we have in fact is a conflict between the Soviet Union and most of the world? Blair: I would say that your second percep-, tion is the one I would go with, and that is that the Soviet Union is encroaching on an area that has to do with the whole world-every person on the face of the Earth. But people in the United States are going to see this as a direct threat to the United States. People in Saudi Arabia are going to view it as a threat to Saudi Arabia. But, as a world citizen, if you can get out of the bounds of your country, it is a threat to freedom and liberty and expression. Is this new "red scare" all it is cracked up t be? Are the fears many Americans hav justified? Blair: My personal opinion is that we need to remain strong in this country. First of all we have to remain strong morally and spiritually, and then we have to back that up with physical strength in the military. Because the Russians have built a land force, the largest in the history of the world. Their navy and air force are fast approaching the quantity and quality of ours. They can't be building such a great for- ce just for defensive purposes. And I believ4 that, seeing their adventurism with the 17,000 Cuban troops under Soviet advisorship in Ethiopia, 20,000 Cuban troops in Angola, air lif- ts irto South Yemen, and their invasion of Afghanistan-it would seem to me that this is' much more than just defensive moves in sup- port of Soviet interests. I don't think we have anything to fear in this country, as long as we stay strong morally and spiritually, and back it up physically. As long as the leadership of the Soviet Union knows that we're stong and we have some will behind that strength, that's all we need. Because we have the greatest thing in the world, we have freedom, and individuality. And we have it in much greater quantity than they'll have under the system they have going right now, unless they change. Daily Photo by JIM KRUZ MAJOR JOSEPH BLAIR, Chairman of the Reserve Officer Training Corps in Ann Ar- bor, talked on Monday about his opinions of the world situation, registration and the draft, and women in the military. I-I I IJE 3tdigan BUIQ Ninety Years o f Editorial Freedom News Phone: 764-0552 Vol. XC, No. 98 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan AL2 4' FN vr4 ,~~ twIO-L)8OA v6I1ru wvoFTusE C 3TRY(GSR~ A~J ThATS AME{(CA. i wTx TO i-ire'c- STAR VIU2A AEFU' KpWD AGSY' FA5C TO 03661 VOW1OA)O &5fA66S. i i, ,. City energy policy sets trends for entire country wEkE lNfl i IIUU I Iilllll, I luUi ITY COUNCIL has set a bold and C, important new course for Ann Arbor, which may well serve as a national model for energy conser- vation in less innovative communities. Council votes next week on a city energy policy for 1980, which combines some hard-nosed, belt-tightening, practical energy-saving measures with a'process of education and infor- mation for the citizenry. Ann Arbor can serve as a model now for a federal government struggling to come to grips with a dangerous energy dependence on imported foreign oil. Policy-makers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are straining to see whether, across the country, the American people are ready, and willing, to undertake the crucial sacrifices that serious energy conser- vation entails. When the city transfers $17,000 from the general city fund to the general energy conservation fund, council will demonstrate that municipalities, even with scarce resources, are willing to commit a share of the treasury to the long-term energy future of the nation. And the Ann Arbor conservation project is a five-year plan, demon- strating that city officials have the knowledge and foresight to realize that true energy saving is not an overnight process. The Ann Arbor plan contains a num- ber of specifics that could well set the pace for energy conservation measures for communities elsewhere with limited resources. Development of land-use policies to control city den- 6ty n hiitwi nwnxth ranresPnts a lnng- commitment on the part of even tax- payers-all of us-so the citizens must realize that tax breaks now may be in- consistent with emergency efforts by local and federal governments to come to grips with our energy crisis. If there is room in the city budget for a proper- ty tax rollback, then the money should be put into an energy conservation fund. If the property tax rollback is to be achieved by reducing social ser- vices, then any energy conservation measures become self-defeating. The poor are the ones who need assistance in home insulation investments and are also the ones who would benefit the most from 'energy conservation education. The city must not embark on this vital venture alone. Perhaps energy conservation will become one area in which the city and the University can step from their mutual corners and agree to work together. Joint city/university rides and van-pooling is one area coming immediately to mind. Other possibilities include joint ventures to research the feasibility of solar power and hydro-electric power from the Huron River. Council must also work with community groups and civic organizations, whose resources can be vital in the educational process. Together, Ann Arbor can set a cour- se of energy self-sufficiency that may help the nation out of its energy malaise. EDITORIAL STAFF Sue Warner...........:................... EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ( t4 Ez.__ - ZI LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Oppose fighting for oil dependence To the Daily: Attention President Carter: As a citizen of this country, I wanted to make you aware that in your recent speech you did not "say just what the American people wanted to hear," at least as far as I am concerned. It infuriates me to think that the U.S. has not learned anything in the last 30 years, and, as happened in Korea and Vietnam, intends to destroy thousands of human lives to preserve that precious world balance of power which American leaders always demand. If one considers the gains received from our last two war fiascos, it should be clear that there may be little ultimate benefit from forcing our military power on Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. Certainly the value of an- nihilting innocent Afghan citizens by waging a power struggle within their borders is questionable. And, the proposal that the entire young population in America willingly risk their lives to once again fight for a non- humanitarian cause sickens me. Additionally, I hope that I do not need to elaborate on the dangers implicit in bluffing military ac- tion against Russia, or in en- couraging war-hawk attitudes in this country. However, my main purpose for writing this letter was not simply to attack your declared policy, but to suggest alternative action which I believe would truly pay off in the long run. If you must rile this nation up to a war-fever pitch, why not consider waging a war against the comfortable American lifestyle which forces our dependence on -the oil- producing countries? Is it necessary to wait until world sup- plies have completely run out, until questions of national sovereignty and pride dissolve before the much larger question of non-existent resources, for the United States government to take decisive action in the energy crisis? Show some foresight! Please take this opportunity, now that you have the whole nation's attention, to pull our citizens together in a genuinely necessary campaign. It is my belief that only in a time of crisis will the American people consent to give up any right so "inalienable" as the right to waste and consume in ridiculous quantities. You have created just such a crisis at- mosphere, and perhaps now before it/is too late, the country will accept forceful action like strict rationing of resources, development of governmental in- centive programs for conser- vation practices, and intensive research of alternative energy possibilities. As 1984 approaches, I can not help thinking that we are really moving toward the kind of lif which George Orwell grimly described. If a state of perpetual warfare (or "military in- volvement" every decade, at least) is required to put the economy on its feet and to work U.S. citizens into a mood of inten- se national spirit, then I believe we have great cause to fear the future. If, however, our leaders are clear-sighted enough to unite the American people in a battl against oil-dependency and su mission to the whims of the oil- producing nations, then I will willingly support my government and see cause for hope. Thank you for considering my views. -Mimi Brody Jan.28 Formaldehyde and tenure To the Daily: I have long contended that the Daily needs a good science editor. The recent article ap- pearing there (Jan. 22) and en- titled "Soviet scientists try to create live 12-foot test-tube mammoth," contains the following one-sentence paragraph which supports that contention: "Mikhelson said in an inter- view this month that ar- chaeologists might have been useable for such a project if they had not been put into strong for- needed to provide the genetic material of now extinct mam- moths. This would be true even if archaeologists had not all been put into strong formaldehyde preservative solutions by their discoverers. Moreover, it strikes me as being highly disrespectful even, to imply that all academics in that field have been preserved only in that fashion; neither am I personally convinced as yet that all archaeologists are mai- moths.The Daily writer surely must have meant to say "physical anthropologists," Singing in the rain