It is difficult not to be leery about the notion of fighting wars for ideas rather than objectives. The military is a lethal instrument, and it is supposed to be exactly that. U.S. forces are best used to accomplish clear, unambiguous missions and wars are best fought to achieve concrete objectives, not abstract ideals. However, after the rationale for invading Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction proved erroneous, we are left with precisely that - a war for an idea. That idea is democracy. But, as it turns out, the United States has experience fighting for that high ideal. [Read article]

Reflects quality of choice, national competition between schools for top leaders

After an extensive search following Mark Zupan's departure in January 2004, the Eller College of Management last week finally announced its new dean. Paul Portney, the president of Resources for the Future, an independent think tank in Washington, D.C., will take over for interim Dean Ken Smith in July.

The choice has pleased those familiar with the decision. Current administrators note his vision and experience. Besides heading Resources for the Future, he worked as an aide for Jimmy Carter and taught at Berkeley and Princeton. His presence alone should add prestige to a college already ranked the 20th-best business school. [Read article]

Iraqi elections show progress, achievement

After the success of the Iraqi election this weekend, people who stand against our presence in Iraq need to seriously re-think their position. This is a momentous achievement that will benefit the Iraqi people and the American government for decades to come. With a strong ally in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy will advance and terrorist nations will be weakened. History was made these past few days, days that should be celebrated by all Americans. [Read article]

Free trade doesn't equal freedom

I was quite shocked to read the derisive Dec. 7 letter from Chad Mills condemning the protesters of the Andean Free Trade Conference. In his letter, Mr. Mills calls the protesters ignorant, says that Native Americans have never appreciated the wheel and goes on to claim that they are working toward slavery and savagery.

I'm not sure if Mr. Mills is attempting to establish himself as intolerant, or if he is trying to defend free trade. What he has done however is shown his own ignorance of the stance of peoples throughout the American continents, including a great number of us within the United States, against free trade agreements that do not favor them. Far from protesting "freedom," as Mills claims, they are seeking the freedom of autonomy that has been systematically denied to peoples throughout South America by capitalist interests from Europe and the United States. Mr. Mills, as do many conservatives that wish to blur the issues at stake with illogical defensive appeals, equivocates free trade with the capitalist system in general, which of course - in Mills' mind - is the same thing as freedom itself. However, free trade is not freedom itself. Only self-determination could truly be characterized as freedom and it is exactly this that these protesters wish to attain. This entails control over local markets for the people who actually live there. Contrary to Mr. Mills' explanation that they wish to hold on to primitive farming techniques thus shackling their own future, these peoples wish to simply control the means of their own survival and remain independent of foreign corporations that dominate their markets and profit from their resources. Is this too much to ask, and do we not all wish the same for ourselves? [Read article]