Georgetown’s Lecture Fund sponsored a teach-in on America’s policy on Iraq to a standing-room-only crowd in ICC Auditorium last Thursday. Interest in the Iraqi issue also sparked demonstrations on campus last week, including students placing a telephone in the middle of Red Square to protest the poential war by giving students an opportunity to call their senator or President George W. Bush’s opinion line.
Initiated by Nabeel Yousef (SFS ’05) and Emil Patrick Totonchi (COL ’06), at least 50 calls were made by students and more than 100 calls were placed from the phone in total.
“I don’t think it’s going to be good for the U.S. to go to war, especially when no one else supports it. If we do, it’s going to be innocent civilians that pay for it,” Yousef said.
The interactive teach-in, however, provided a forum for the expression of all views. Dean of the School of Foreign Service, Robert Galluci, served as moderator and four Georgetown professors spoke: government professor Robert Lieber, Samer Shehata from the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Carol Lancaster from MSFS and James Reardon-Anderson also from MSFS. After a brief presentation of their views, the four professors stepped back to allow students an opportunity to express their own opinions and critically question each professor’s argument.
Reardon-Anderson said that although these professors were qualified to speak based on their academic knowledge, they are also U.S. citizens who are obligated to question their government’s actions.
Lieber was the only professor to unequivocally support the decision to attack Iraq. Lieber opposed critics of this decision by saying that they have failed to take into account the “cold and sobering” lessons of Sept. 11, which he said showed that some individuals are willing to kill people as well as themselves without any moral consideration.
He said that the “sadism and brutality which [Saddam] treats people, even his own family” demonstrates that his rash actions can have suicidal effects on his own people as well as other countries. Lieber connected Saddam Hussein to terrorist groups including al-Qaeda, adding that Hussein could be tempted to hand over power of mass destruction. Lieber argues that the risks of inaction are greater than risks of attacking and concluded his speech by saying, “Saddam with the bomb is something the world does not want to see, the consequences will be dire.”
In contrast to Lieber, Shehata argued that going to war “has to be the last resort, not the first..” Shehata disputed the connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda and argued that Hussein does not pose a physical threat to the United States because he is conscious of his regime’s survival, which would be compromised if he attacked the United States. Shehata agrees that Iraq’s threat to the United States is real, not in terms of a chemical or biological threat, but rather in terms of U.S. homogeneity and control of oil. “I’m not defending Saddam, it’s a terrible regime. But the question `should we go to war?’ is `no,'” Shehata said.
Instead, Shehata argued for changes to U.S. foreign policy, such as employing weapons inspectors in Baghdad, encouraging domestic rebellions against the regime, holding war crime trials and removing U.S. sanctions. Shehata maintains that sanctions have hurt Iraqi citizens rather than taking down Saddam’s regime.
Lancaster encouraged examination of both the moral and practical issues involved in engaging in war with Iraq. She said that while the previous war with Iraq was a justified response to the invasion of Kuwait, she is not as convinced that U.S. interests are presently threatened. “He’s a terrible man, he might have weapons of mass destruction, he might attack, but `mights’ don’t constitute use of force against Iraq,” Lancaster said. She pointed out that although a regime change and the disarmament of Iraq would be beneficial, damaging repercussions may result because of internal Iraqi conflicts. Lancaster said that Iraq would implode and the United States would have to settle a civil war, and “U.S. troops would be put on the ground between bullets.” An attack on Iraq would also spark countless regional conflicts, and thus it would be “an enormously risky business.”
Reardon-Anderson opened his speech by encouraging citizens to ask questions of the government. “Why abandon deterrence for preemptive strike?” Reardon-Anderson asked. “A policy of deterrence fits the advice we have given other countries with weapons. If we establish a preemptive strike policy we’ll be sending a message that it’s OK to use the bomb if you feel threatened.”
Reardon-Anderson also argued that it is dangerous to adopt a foreign policy based on a black and white struggle between good and evil at the expense of other interests. “The key thing is that you keep asking questions,” Reardon-Anderson said as he concluded his presentation.
After the four presentations, students were encouraged to express their own views on the Iraq issue. While some students stood and addressed the audience to express their opinions, others critically questioned the speaker’s arguments. In turn, the speakers were given an opportunity to respond and defend their arguments. One Iraqi-American student passionately implored students to reject the war. “I’m very worried about my family,” he said.
The demonstrations, on the other hand, generally invoked a positive outlook. “One Protestant chaplain came up and gave me a hug,” Yousef said.
Based on the reactions he received in Red Square, Yousef said he feels that students are generally anti-war and those who are pro-war are generally less passionate. He further explained his motivation for setting up the phone as a way to become more active in the expression of his beliefs. “We’re always criticized for being high-profile, low action. We don’t want to be just sitting around complaining, so we decided to set up the phone.”
