Members of a Boston University-sponsored forum debating proposed United States action against Iraq voiced varying opinions last night on what that action should be, when it should take place and whether it should take place at all.
Two political science professors and a foreign correspondent for The Boston Globe comprised the panel entitled, “On To Baghdad? Next Steps in the War on Terror.”
The forum, attended by about 40 people, was sponsored by BU’s Center for International Relations, and took place in the Center’s Bay State Road headquarters yesterday evening.
BU Professor Andrew Bacevich, the Center’s director, moderated the event. Bacevich also took the self-professed role of “arch-hawk,” presenting the hard-line argument in favor of taking military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
“We need to lance the boil, lance the boil,” Bacevich said, calling for immediate action against Hussein and his regime. “This is a guy who cannot be saved; this is a guy who can’t be redeemed, this a guy who needs to be removed.”
Bacevich cited Hussein’s continued development of weapons of mass destruction, as well as his willingness to use them on his enemies and his own people as justification. He also referred to reported meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaida members in Poland as further proof that Iraq is still a threat to American interests.
Panel member Betty Zisk, a professor of political science at BU, opposed any military incursion into Iraq and called for a more positive form of nation building. She advocated seizing the “high moral ground” by offering positive aid rather than more violence. Zisk, who opposes the United States’ military action in Afghanistan, labeled America’s conduct in Iraq following the Gulf War “disgraceful.”
“We could make a model of Afghanistan, but not in a military way,” Zisk said referring to America’s effort at nation building. “We don’t want to look like a bully, and I’m afraid we might.”
Kirk Beattie, a political science professor at Simmons College who specializes in Egypt, said the U.S. needs to beware of acting like a “rogue superpower.” Beattie said the U.S. could continue to contain Hussein, who controls only one-third of the country, without forcefully deposing him. He advocated various non-military alternatives, such as “smartening up” sanctions already in place against the country and allocating more money for positive aid to the region.
“Until we recognize the importance of making changes,” Beattie said, “we won’t be able to watch the Super Bowl and not worry if someone will exploit that site as an opportunity to take out a lot of people.”
Beattie also argued that an unprovoked attack on Iraq would strain international support for America’s war on terrorism, especially in Europe and among moderate Arab nations.
Boston Globe foreign affairs columnist H.D.S. Greenway agreed with Bacevich that Saddam Hussein presents “a clear and present danger” to its neighbors and the U.S., though he said he doubted Hussein could be contained as Beattie contended.
But for Greenway it wasn’t a question of if the U.S. should act, but when. He said the U.S. needs time to establish a coherent idea of what it wants to do, how it plans to achieve it and what will happen once it succeeds.
“If we’re going to go against Saddam Hussein,” Greenway said, “we need to have a clear picture of what we want to replace him … There is risk in delay, but the risk is worth it.”
“I just don’t think we could pull the trigger right now … The last thing we want is an Iraqi Bay of Pigs,” he said. “If you’re going to shoot the king, you’d better not miss.”
Bacevich said the military efforts Afghanistan could be used as a model for attacking Iraq. He suggested the U.S. could use the same combination of ground proxy forces, air strikes and U.S. special forces to achieve its aims in Iraq.
However, William Keylor, professor of international relations at BU, disagreed. In Afghanistan’s case, the U.S. had been directly attacked, but not so with Iraq, Keylor said. He questioned whether the U.S. government would be able to persuade the American public to support action in Iraq.
BU graduate student of international relations Lori Cannon, 25, said she was concerned the proxy force in Iraq most comparable to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Kurds, are not likely to support the U.S. again.
America supported Kurdish rebels in Iraq during the Gulf War, only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Hussein after the war was over.
“I doubt they’re suckers,” Cannon said.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
