Possible presidential candidate discusses Iraq in Sargent

Former United States Senator Gary Hart and Boston University International Relations professor Andrew Bacevich told students Saturday the war in Iraq represents a ‘major shift in U.S. policy’ and that the superpower is now at a historical crossroads that will affect the entire globe.

The special forum was filled beyond capacity, as more than 70 students packed Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences room 102 for the event, titled ‘War in Iraq: Assessment and Implications’ and organized by the Center for International Relations.

According to Hart, the doctrine of preemption the Bush administration has adopted does not mean ‘you can go off and attack anyone you want to the threat must be immediate and unavoidable.’

Hart said he did not believe there is an immediate threat in Iraq that warrants an attack, and he disagrees with Bush’s reasoning for the war.

‘Was the threat so big to warrant immediate action? Not in my mind,’ Hart said. ‘Was there proof that [Hussein] is connected to Al Qaeda? Not in my mind.’

Bacevich and Hart said they believed the war against Iraq is in some respects a retaliation against the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but could not make a direct connection.

The war’s connection to the war on terror is justified for Bush because it has been his way of trying to make Americans feel safe, after the horrible events of Sept. 11, Bacevich said.

‘Try to see the world the way Bush sees it you don’t have to accept it,’ said Bacevich, drawing a chuckle from the crowd. ‘You are the president of the United States and you had the worst thing in 50 years just happen on your watch. How do you ensure that doesn’t happen again?’

The answer, according to Bacevich, is to ‘get at the place where the hijackers came from.’ Baghdad is just that place, he said.

Once the Bush administration realized the goal, they cited disarmament and regime change for objectives in attacking Iraq, according to Hart.

‘The objective isn’t disarming,’ Hart said of the Bush administration’s reason for going to war. ‘The direct objective is regime change.’

The United States had initial global consensus for disarmament but not for regime change, according to Hart. Hart also said we are sending ‘signal to the world that ‘we don’t need you anymore.”

Hart said the United States is now going to use Iraq as a base in the region to ‘bring democracy to the world, if necessary on the point of a bayonet.’

But the United States’ desire to institutionalize democracy in the Middle East is not the only reason it is going to war there, according to Hart. Oil also plays a role, he said.

‘You cannot go to war in this region of the world and not be affected by oil,’ Hart said of the controversial topic.

‘We will sustain our lifestyle and we will lose American lives to protect it; we will sacrifice sons and daughters to keep driving the cars we drive,’ Hart said.

And many more people will die than most Americans expect, Hart said, though the only reason many Americans have supported the war is because of the idea that the war will be free of casualties. Iraqis will probably use urban warfare in downtown Baghdad, making the war far bloodier than the war in Afghanistan or Gulf War, Hart said.

‘We’re in for a hell of a show,’ Hart said.

‘The president didn’t tell us that … He didn’t tell us that we are encouraging attacks on the [United States],’ he said later. ‘We’re going to get attacked as a result of this war, and we’re not ready.’

‘War is going to be hell, people are going to kill each other,’ Hart said.

Although Hart disagreed with Bush’s reasoning behind the war, he made a point not to confuse those policy-makers who order military action, and those in the military who carry it out.

‘It was a shameful chapter in U.S. history when people attacked … soldiers who came back [from Vietnam],’ he said.

‘Do not do it,’ Hart said as the crowd erupted into applause. ‘Shake their hand, honor them and respect them.’