Retired four-star General Wesley Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, moderated two panels on “America After the War” Wednesday morning in Gaston Hall, focusing on both foreign policy and the home front.

The members of the first panel discussion, “America: The World Stage,” agreed that while the military phase of the war in Iraq was overwhelmingly successful, the reconstruction of the country, which may be hampered by numerous religious, ethnic and tribal divisions, may prove to be far more costly and time-consuming. The panel also reached a consensus that American diplomacy and alliances needed greater attention following the war and that by alienating allies, American foreign policy efforts in key regions such as the Middle East would be more difficult to implement successfully.

“The Saddam Hussein regime is out,” Clark told over 200 students and guests in attendance. “Those who watched around the world have taken note – North Korea, China, Syria and others.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, addressed the pending reconstruction of Iraq and remained skeptical that the postwar nation-building would be as easy as some in the administration had suspected. “It wouldn’t surprise me if you heard less about the spread of democracy throughout the iddle East from the administration now. A serious dilemma that may present itself is the question, will we curtail our presence if they ask to leave and risk civil war, or do we risk being viewed as a colonial power?” Holbrooke asked. “This reconstruction of Iraq will be longer, more costly and more difficult than any advocates have said. The military plan was very bold, and I supported this operation from the beginning, but we have to be realistic about where we are.”

The panel also discussed the future of American diplomacy and the mending of alliances that may have been damaged in the debate about the war within the United Nations Security Council.

“Just as important as military power is the respect and trust that the United States has enjoyed,” Fritz Stern, professor emeritus at Columbia University, said. “Today we are pursuing aims, regardless of what our allies think. There is a responsibility for the grave political failure that must be shared by the French, the Germans and the Russians, but the bulk of the responsibility lies with the superpower.”

Holbrooke said that the Bush administration had the opportunity to rebuild alliances and trust by creating a role for multilateral organizations in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. The ambassador lashed out against comments made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that had equated Germany with Libya and Cuba.

Walter Isaacson, CEO of the Aspen Institute, stressed America’s historical commitment to the ideal of freedom. “When Benjamin Franklin went to France as a diplomat, he explained the ideal of America to France, and it was the appeal of that ideal that got France on board in the Revolutionary War,” he said. “It’s that mixture of realism and idealism that can help guide American foreign policy in the next century.”

Several panelists agreed that success in the war on terrorism would be limited until the United States more fully understood the mindset of the fundamentalist Islamic militants in the Middle East. In addition, some panelists stated that U.S. inaction on the Israel-Palestine peace process was largely viewed in Muslim nations as the U.S. support of Israel, sending a message that the United States was at war with Islam and not specific regimes.

“The perception – and it’s extremely powerful in even the most moderate Islamic states, like Malaysia and Indonesia – can’t get past the U.S. inaction on Israel and Palestine, and this is seen as America being at war against Islam,” Clyde Prestowitz, Jr., founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute, said.

Karen DeYoung, an associate editor for The Washington Post who is currently covering the Bush administration’s foreign policy, discussed apparent internal divisions within the administration.

“What we see in the administration is a basic disagreement about the value of diplomacy. Usually administrations disagree on small issues – that’s fairly common,” she said. “But it seems that this administration has internal disagreements in larger, more fundamental ways. If you sit where I sit you can see this just by making a few phone calls.”

The School of Foreign Service, the Georgetown University Lecture Fund and Leadership for America, a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization, sponsored the panel discussion.