Mounting War Tensions Spark Campus Debate

Author: Mallika Rao

Thursday night's forum on the potential war with Iraq filled the Robert A. Jones House conference room with republicans, democrats, progressives, representatives from numerous other organizations and, most notably, open conversation. Spearheaded by Wellington Lyons '04.5, president of the New Left and political science major, the talk was moderated by Alison Stanger, associate professor of political science and director of the Center for International Affairs. Stanger allocated blocks of time for scripted statements from group leaders and professors as well as questions from the audience.
Lyons received help in conceiving and organizing the event from Student Government Association President Ginny Hunt and Professor of Political Science David Rosenberg.
After meeting some criticism for the one-sided and possibly limiting nature of his petitions, Lyons was encouraged by the SGA to devise a more "democratic" medium of expression. His answer was the democratic arena Thursday night in which, ironically, the necessity of democracy was seriously questioned.
Stanger set the tone for the night by drawing upon the philosophy that "reasonable people can strongly disagree." She expressed the need for a "genuine conversation" and insisted on that being "the spirit in which this talk will be conducted." She concluded by introducing Rosenberg, a familiar presence at all Robert A. Jones talks. He began with the question "Why war, now?" After outlining the generally accepted reasons for the war -- elimination of a brutal dictatorship and probable threat to the United States -- he presented the current alternatives to war, including containment, inspection and diplomacy.
Rosenberg then addressed the issue from an economic standpoint, conducting a cost-benefit analysis of war. His costs included human lives, the economic impact, the implications of the United States' unilateral leadership and a possible provocation of more terrorist attacks. The benefits were less in number, comprised primarily of the reasons for war he stated earlier.
Rosenberg cited Vietnam as evidence against attempting to destroy and rebuild Iraq.
Rosenberg also referenced the United States' lack of consideration for Afghanistan in budget planning. He cautioned against an attempted reconstruction riding on the coattails of such an oversight.
Although Rosenberg maintained an objective viewpoint, his parting quote from Eschalus conveyed quite forcefully the dangers of war: "In war, truth is the first casualty."
Dirks Professor of Political Science Michael Kraus followed Rosenberg with an equally balanced analysis of the situation. He focused on the two differing responses to Saddam Hussein's widely acknowledged possession of mass weapons of destruction. Citing findings from the Brookings Institute, he put forward the possibility that Iraqi military strength is impossible for outsiders to estimate, and thus Hussein, as an "unpredictable gambler," must be removed.
After providing some startling revelations about the inaccuracy of previous estimates on Iraqi momentum, Kraus countered with the other side's response. The pro-containment stance, based on the successful containment and deterrence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, relies on a more rational and limited view of Hussein. In light of his non-use of weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War, some specialists feel the logic of deterrence can and should be applied to Hussein.
James Jermain Professor of Political Economy Russell Leng followed Kraus. He concentrated on the international repercussions of the proposed war. He asserted that the weight of U.S. unilateral action could result in the dissolution of our current Western -- and even worldwide -- alliance. It would pose a severe threat to our Western ties primarily because both France and Germany have denounced the potential war.
Leng compared the present situation to a poker game in which each player feels compelled to raise the stakes solely to intimidate the opponent, only to find that the stakes finally prove too high to follow through with. According to Leng, the United States may be more able to threaten a war than to actually wage one.
After the relatively objective presentations by the professors, the talk moved into the more subjective realm of politically aligned student representatives. Ginny Hunt '03 began with a brief statement from the SGA encouraging an ongoing "dialogue."
Lyons, the event organizer, spoke for the New Left. His speech was an emotional request to keep in mind the human cost of war. He urged students to "not be deceived by the media" and to speak out against the war.
Drew Pugsley '04 spoke on behalf of the Middlebury Republicans. He based his justification of the war on the obvious threat of Hussein alongside the impossibility of containment.
Pugsley was followed by the College Democrats' speaker, Ben LaBolt '03. LaBolt argued that the United States' request to the United Nations amounts to passing our resolution or "facing irrelevancy." LaBolt also reinforced Leng's earlier warning against a breach of international accord.
LaBolt then ceded the floor to Naomi Andrews '03 of the College Progressives. Her brief statement was primarily an appeal for campus-wide dialogue.
Following Andrews came Giorgi Areshidzi '04 for the Tocqueville Society.
Areshidzi's words examined "universal reasons" supporting a war, among them upholding of past U.N. resolutions that have been systematically disregarded by Hussein.
He declared that without some sort of action against Hussein, U.N. agreements are rendered hollow and perhaps even farcical. Areshidzi went on to question the anticipated success of deterrence and concluded with war as the only remaining option.
The remainder of the night was dedicated to student questions. Although there was not time to address all of the raised hands, many students lingered long after the talk had ended to question professors individually.
Stanger and Rosenberg pointed to this as one of the more visible signs the event's success.
Rosenberg said there are two more talks covering the topic of the possible war in Iraq scheduled for this semester.