A dynamic and lively group discussed the future effects of American policy and the current state of affairs at the third and final panel discussion of U.S.-Iraqi relations Wednesday.
The five panelists each presented a unique stance on the debate, creating a mixed atmosphere of both support and criticism for the ongoing conflict. The panel, comprised of a retired general and professors from various disciplines, spoke to a group of about 50 people.
Assistant Professor of English Ranjana Khanna opened the discussion by examining the letter submitted to the United Nations by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Nov. 13. The letter, which referred to British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a "lackey," attacked the justifications of war.
"What will this war be about, besides killing people because all wars are about that?" she asked. "Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have little in common besides the fact that they were trained and supplied by the [Central Intelligence Agency].... It is indeed difficult to establish just who is an enemy and who is a friend."
In addition to questioning the motives of war, others questioned political motives.
"'War is good politics and... President [George W.] Bush and the Republicans could run on war,'" Professor of History panelist Alex Roland said, quoting Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove. Roland equated the current environment to "a sort of Wag the Dog situation."
In contrast to these concerns, other panel members intimated that Iraq's threat to the U.S. was very real.
"Iraq poses a threat to the U.S. and the world order," said James B. Duke Professor of Political Science Robert Keohane, alluding to the country's past record with weapons of mass destruction.
Keohane, another panel member, offered four possible policy strategies including containment and deterrence, unilateral preventive war, multilateral coercive diplomacy and appeasement, defense and delay. Of the four, he argued that multilateral coercive diplomacy, the course upon which the U.S. is currently following, was the best possible solution. He cited failures in past policies of containment and the detriments of unilateral preventive war, which he said would not only be costly but would also increase anti-American sentiment and violate the U.N. Charter.
Retired Brigadier General Stephen Smith warned against unilateral war as well during the panel. "Acting unilaterally, we run the risk of winning the war and losing the peace," said Smith, who is also currently the Director of Human Resources at Duke Hospital.
The audience responded well to the discussion. "I thought the discourse was very positive. As students, the most important thing is to educate ourselves, understand the problem and to get past the rhetoric," sophomore Joshua Nelson said.
Following the panel, Keohane urged students to be politically conscious.
"It really is the obligation of everyone who is a voter to make up their mind, and having made up their mind, it is their responsibility to act politically," he said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.