The American government did not offer sufficient evidence before engaging in war with Iraq, according to five Boston University professors who spoke to more than 100 concerned students and community members yesterday at the School of Law.
‘Teach-In: What’s next in Iraq’ played host to professors from the political science, international relations, history and law fields. They criticized the reasons for America’s involvement in both a moral and legal basis.
‘The decision to invade Iraq was not an action of frustration by Bush,’ said political science professor Irene Gendzier.
She added that the American government had been planning the war for several years. ‘Long before Bush declared his intentions, the policy was in place.’
The panel said America went to war in order to preserve its interests in the Middle East, most notably the creation of a compatible government that would support U.S. companies and also to demonstrate America’s power to the international community.
International relations professor Richard Norton said he supported the war against Afghanistan because it ‘was justified use of defense.’ However, he refused to stand behind American involvement in Iraq.
Unlike many critics of the war, Norton said he does not believe America invaded to get oil, but rather to receive worldwide attention.
‘I don’t think oil had a strong effect on the war,’ he said. ‘Iraq was a demonstration. This is about throwing a rock into the pond.’
Ronald Richardson, a BU history professor, said he also felt the United States made an example of Iraq and showed other countries America will not tolerate threats. He added he was concerned about the lack of skepticism on the part of the American people.
Richardson said this trust in President Bush’s White House ‘shocked’ him.
‘I could not believe that the American people accept that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,’ Richardson said. ‘We are in Iraq and we still can’t find weapon of mass destruction.’
Although he agreed the majority of Americans did not show opposition to the war, Norton said some government agencies questioned the White House’s reason for war.
‘Is it sufficient for the president to say it is about weapons of mass destruction?’ he asked. ‘The CIA published a report that was very skeptical about Iraq’s nuclear capability. They will find, I am sure, some small cache of weapons. But is that enough to warrant a war?’
Richardson said he disagreed that the Sept. 11 attacks were a justification for an invasion of Iraq.
‘Sept. 11 was not the cause; it was the opportunity,’ he said.
America’s reasons for attacking Iraq were not only insufficient in a moral sense, but in a legal sense as well, according to the United Nations charter, said School of Law professor Susan Akram.
‘Law matters,’ she said. ‘The U.N. prohibited all nations from using or threatening the use of force in order to prevent the world from the horrors of World War II.’
Although United States officials have called the attack on Iraq an act of self-defense, there was no justification for the aggression, Akram said. She also said America acted in violation of the United Nations because its charter does not address preemptive attacks.
Gendzier told students there is a great deal of evidence at their fingertips. She encouraged students to do their own research before accepting what the government tells them.
College of Arts and Sciences freshmen Dan Weber said he appreciated the expertise each professor offered to the discussion, which was sponsored by BU’s International Law Society, but felt the audience was already convinced before attending the event.
‘The professors are clearly experts in the field,’ he said. ‘But I think they were pretty much preaching to the choir.’
Jesse Alt, a first-year student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, said he felt the talk was ‘definitely informative’ but the teach-in did not address the question of what would happen when the war ended.