Boston University’s 21st biannual Great Debate, focusing on U.S. policy in Iraq, was declared the “first even split in the history of the Great Debate” last night in front of a full Tsai Auditorium by moderator and journalism professor Robert Zelnick.

The debate focused on “Should the United States ‘Stay the Course’ for victory in Iraq?” Audience members exited the auditorium on the left or right, placing their vote for the affirmative or negative.

“I can’t think of anything more relevant,” Zelnick said in an interview after the event.

In introducing and opening the debate, Zelnick noted the openness of the current situation in Iraq.

“We are not na’ve; we know these have been dark days for the U.S. effort,” he said. “The bottom line is not yet written.”

Although President Bush’s administration stopped using the phrase “stay the course” Oct. 24 without making any policy changes, the change of rhetoric was only briefly mentioned by the negative side, which argued against “staying the course.”

The debate began with the affirmative side’s lead speaker, American Lebanese Coalition Senior Policy Advisor Adib Farha. Farha admitted it may have been a mistake to have become involved in Iraq, but it would be a “far worse mistake to get out of Iraq prematurely.”

“To me, staying the course means not cutting and running,” he said.

Farha said “we just can’t afford to stay on this track,” but the answer to problems in Iraq would not be answered by wielding a “geographical butcher knife.” This division would establish “a terrorist safe-haven that would definitely follow us home.” The affirmative side argued the United States should tweak its policies in Iraq, while remaining in the country.

“Nobody likes an occupier,” he said, and consequently, the United States should not leave all of its troops where they are in Iraq.

Negative side lead speaker Peter Galbraith, a political consultant and former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, opened the opposing argument by arguing that “staying the course” is not a strategy. A strategy, he argued, is “a realistic assessment of the situation.”

Galbraith concentrated on the sectarian division in Iraq, noting that “saying it isn’t a civil war doesn’t mean it isn’t a civil war.”

Galbraith’s argument included the two-fold solution of disbanding Shiite militias and “theocracies in the south that violate human rights,” something the current administration is “not prepared to do.”

The affirmative side’s argument was supplemented by Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a Fox News Military Analyst, and College of Communication senior Daniel Chaparian, a two-time participant in the Great Debate.

“In a sea of bad decisions, abandoning their nation would be the worst decision yet,” Chaparian said.

College of Arts and Sciences and COM junior Neil St. Clair aided the negative side by expanding on the idea that “it would be disastrous for the United States to stay the course in Iraq.”

The Brookings Institute Foreign Policy Studies Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, speaking for the negative side, started by saying he represented more of a combination of the two sides than just the negative side.

“I no longer think that anything close to staying the course will solve the problem,” he said. “I do not mean complete withdrawal.

“We are beginning to lose,” O’Hanlon continued. “I still think we can salvage something.”

After the formal arguments by the negative and affirmative sides, the audience was allowed to speak on behalf of either side. Among those who shared their opinions were students from Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates.

In closing, Galbraith, for the negative, said affirmative calls to stand by the Iraqi “nation” were irrelevant. He asked “what nation” there is to stand by.

Galbraith argued Iraq is too sectarian and challenged the affirmative to explain, “how will ‘stay the course’ produce victory in Iraq?”

Farha closed for the affirmative side, noting the United States “can get out when we’ve left a stable country.” He said the United States must not be so concerned about the war being “very costly,” economically.

“Is there a price for freedom?” Farha asked.

CAS sophomore Renzo Verne, who attended one Great Debate before last night’s, said “the negative side was more convincing” but agreed more with the affirmative.

Students made their decision based on presentation and content.

“In terms of oration, the negative side was very well-spoken,” COM freshman Susan Borbely said. “I sided with the affirmative because after listening to both sides, we need to fix what we messed up in Iraq.”