Panelists spar over Iraq conflict and solutions

Panelists spar over Iraq conflict and solutions

by Chris Maroshegyi
The Heights (Boston College)
2/22/07

As the results of the recent midterm election and the current debate in Congress show, the War in Iraq has become the defining characteristic of national debate in the United States. As violence continues to spiral out of control, and President George W. Bush's decision to increase the number of U.S. troops to quell the violence, this debate has centered on what the future U.S. strategy should be in Iraq and whether or not troops should stay or be withdrawn.

This debate was brought to life at Boston College Tuesday night when Americans for Informed Democracy hosted a discussion titled, "An Objective Panel Discussion on the Strategic Future for Iraq." The panel included some of the most prominent faculty members at BC: professors Donald Hafner, Marc Landy, and Nasser Behnegar of the political science department, and professors Seth Jacobs and Benjamin Braude of the history department.

In their opening statements, the speakers addressed what the U.S. strategy should be in Iraq and in the region in the context of the current conflict throughout the Middle East.

Behnegar noted that sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam is the highest it has been in recent memory, a phenomenon which is dividing the region and fueling chaos in Iraq. According to Behnegar, U.S. troop withdrawals would deepen this divide and contribute to a "full-scale regional civil war."

"It is in our national interest to stay in Iraq," said Behnegar. "We will be compelled to return if we leave and it is our responsibility to help Iraqis to reconstitute their society."

Landy shared many of Behnegar's sentiments, arguing that the United States had, and still has, the justification and the responsibility to be in Iraq, much to the chagrin of the audience. "I applaud that my government addressed the threat of terrorism and made it so the war is being fought there and not in the streets of New York. It is a remarkable accomplishment," said Landy.

He did have his share of criticism for the Bush administration, however, citing its marginalization of the war by sending too few troops.

"The administration thought that we could somehow rely on a small amount of troops and private companies to get the jobs done," said Landy. "That's wishful thinking. We need to Spartanize America if we wanted to make a difference."

Jacobs, who drew the parallels between the Vietnam War and the current war, joined Landy in stating that the current level of troops in Iraq was not sufficient, especially in light of how many troops were needed in Vietnam.

The two offered the best way to help the United States in its war against Iraq and terrorism - a military draft. "Conscription would make young people like you much more interested in solving the current war in Iraq," said Jacobs.

Braude offered a starkly different view from those of Jacobs and Landy, citing historical examples to prove why the situation in Iraq is out of the control of U.S. troops.

"Viewed historically, the region has always fluctuated between two statuses: either it has assumed the role as the base of an expansionist empire or it has been a territory fought over by its neighbors," said Braude. "U.S. involvement or noninvolvement will not make a difference; the proxy war will take place. The level of U.S. involvement that would prevent that war is a level that American society will simply not support."

The current situation has two consequences for the United States, said Hafner, who argued that U.S. presence in Iraq was fueling terrorists around the world. "The U.S. is currently putting on a $2 billion a week workshop on insurgency," said Hafner. "The current situation offers opportunities and lessons for terrorists worldwide." He said that gaining support from the Sunnis throughout the region, and focusing on al-Qaida targets is the most plausible strategy for the administration.

Braude said that America should focus on specific threats, rather that overgeneralizing terrorism and considering it powerful enough to end Western civilization.

"Forget the war on terror," said Braude. "The U.S needs to identity specific targets, like nuclear threats and focus on them. We must be able to distinguish between a danger which is a real danger and a danger which is not as great." The danger of terrorism, said Braude, is generally overblown.

Whatever the strategy, Hafner stressed the need for the United States to come together and address the situation as one body. "We don't need any new ideas in Iraq, we need a national coalescence around a U.S. disengagement, whether it is soon or later, judged by American national interest," said Hafner.

This sentiment was echoed by Jacobs, who stressed the need for Congress and the nation to have an open debate about the situation in Iraq.

Citing how the United States was led and bogged down in Vietnam due to hasty decision-making through misinformation or misinterpretation, he drew parallels to how the Bush administration made many of the same mistakes in Iraq.

"Both the Iraqi and Vietnam wars resulted from faulty intelligence or misinformation. Congress should have a full, frank debate before going to war," said Jacobs.