While Boston University professors said they favored the latest actions taken against Iraq, students were split in their opinions last night.
The House of Representatives approved President Bush’s resolution on Iraq yesterday in a 296-123 vote while the Senate approved the resolution 77-23, leading the United States closer to the prospect of military action in the Middle East.
The resolution supports the president’s efforts to enforce UN Security Council regulations in Iraq and authorizes the president to use United States armed forces to ‘defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.’
Robert Zelnick, the head of BU’s journalism department who covered the Pentagon during the Persian Gulf War for ABC, described the resolution as a ‘blank check’ for President Bush to initiate or withhold an attack as he desires.
‘I don’t think there’s any condition on demanding any UN Security Council resolution,’ Zelnick said. ‘If, for example, the president is displeased by what the Security Council does, under this resolution, he can ignore it and make the decision to initiate hostilities on his own.
‘I agree with the House in giving the president this authority because I feel that stopping Saddam Hussein is a laudable and worthwhile objective,’ Zelnick said.
Bruce Schulman, a College of Arts and Sciences professor who teaches history and American studies, said Bush made a good decision in seeking approval from members of Congress.
‘I think it was extremely wise and absolutely crucial for the president to make the decision to get congressional action,’ Schulman said. ‘I think it’s going to be important for him both in the short and the long run.’
Schulman spoke of those who opposed the resolution, and said in previous instances, dissenters have paid a political price for opposing popular action, but in the long term often gain ‘grudging respect from voters and history.’
Those in Congress opposing Bush’s resolution, he said, ‘fit squarely into a long-established tradition.’
Dissenters usually raise two key questions, Schulman said. One concerns the seriousness and eminence of the threat, and the other the consequences following a military victory.
He emphasized the importance of letting debate take place within Congress.
‘I think having a free and open debate and answering the critics and dissenters is going to be important for both Bush’s short-term conduct of the war and in the long-term interests of U.S. foreign policy,’ Schulman said.
Both Zelnick and Schulman said they believed the resolution did not pass through Congress too quickly.
‘I don’t think it’s fair to say this is hasty; I’d say quite the contrary,’ Schulman said. ‘Even though the president gave his speech on Monday in which he explicitly answered questions about it, this debate has been going on since September. That seems pretty efficient, but not hasty.’
Zelnick said he felt the ‘question of Iraq has been debated for 11 years,’ and emphasized that Hussein has caused trouble throughout this period by defying UN resolutions, amassing weapons of mass destruction, attempting to obtain uranium and providing support for terrorist organizations.
While some students shared views with Schulman and Zelnick, others disagreed. College of Engineering junior Anna Vasquez said she did not think the United States should pursue military intervention in Iraq.
‘I don’t think it’s right. It’s just going to create more aggressiveness. It’s a vicious cycle,’ she said.
Laura Benson, a Boston College employee who was dining with a friend in the George Sherman Union, said she opposed military action.
‘Basically, I think our government is being a bully,’ she said. ‘They should go through the procedure they’re supposed to and find direct evidence [of weapons of mass destruction]. Just because he’s been a threat in the past doesn’t mean he’s planning any revenge,’ she said.
However, other students said they supported the president’ use of military force in Iraq.
‘I don’t believe Bush’s concept of military intervention is a bad one or an unjust one,’ Steven Psihogios, a College of Arts and Sciences junior.
‘Saddam Hussein is a terrible human being. I don’t condone a full-on war, but it is in our best interest to make sure he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction,’ Psihogios said. He said he had confidence in Bush and his Cabinet to make decisions about U.S. actions in the Middle East.