Iraq debate raises issues about the war's future

Author: Brian Fung

On May 5, former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter W. Galbraith and Captain Peter Hegseth, a veteran of the Iraq War, sparred in a two-hour debate in McCullough Social Space over the future of American policy in Iraq. The debate follows a string of efforts this year by College Democrats and College Republicans to promote informed discussion about President George W. Bush administration's campaign against terrorism.

Hegseth and Galbraith largely disagreed over the extent to which U.S. forces were affecting stability in Iraq. While Hegseth claimed that the American mission would ultimately provide enough security for Iraqis to take control, Galbraith called for an immediate troop withdrawal in the face of a costly long-term strategy.

"In terms of our objectives as described by President Bush," said Galbraith, "the war is lost. We are not going to achieve our goal of a unified and stable Iraq. We are not going to be able to dislodge Iranian influence."

But Hegseth stressed that yielding to the insurgency would have broader implications for American security beyond Iraq.

"Whether we like it or not," said Hegseth, "our enemies have drawn the line in Iraq. And our enemies are watching. Our allies are watching."

Hegseth's analyses drew heavily upon his interactions with Iraqis during his deployment as an infantry platoon leader in Baghdad between 2005 and 2006. Thanks to recent changes in strategy brought to the region by General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, safety and normality have begun to return to certain Baghdad neighborhoods, said Hegseth. Local Iraqi security forces are operating more effectively, while overall violence has dropped remarkably.

Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy has had Iraqis reconsidering their allegiances in light of improved living conditions, according to Hegseth. Where ordinary citizens were once wary of cooperating with the U.S. for fear of retribution by insurgents, he said, the tables have begun to turn - with militants now increasingly concerned about possible infiltrators.

"The fear dynamic swaps and the intelligence floodgates open up," said Hegseth. "Pretty soon, that intelligence is there and you're picking it apart."

Galbraith dismissed Hegseth's observations as off-topic, saying the captain "spoke overwhelmingly of Iraqis" but not of American interests. Galbraith called for a withdrawal from Iraq so that the U.S. might be better equipped to address emerging threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Regular visits to Iraq since the 1980s - as well as experience as a high-level diplomat - provided the base for a deep understanding of the Iraq War, said the former ambassador. Galbraith suggested that while remaining in Iraq failed to advance the American agenda, a small strike force should be stationed in northern Iraq to defend a fledgling Kurdish state. While Hegseth had little to say in response to the proposal, Galbraith fielded a number of audience questions on the Kurdish issue, including one suggesting that defending the Kurds would damage American relations with Turkey. That concern arose from recent Turkish hostilities with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a Kurdish separatist group known for its terrorist tactics.

"The fact is, there is an independent Iraqi Kurdistan because of Turkey," Galbraith replied. "Turkey lobbied for the U.S. to intervene and create a safe area."

In response to other questions, Galbraith and Hegseth also exchanged fire over Iran's role in the region and America's global image in a wider public-relations campaign.

"Our image in the world matters," said Hegseth. "You can dismiss image flippantly, but it's going to be examined for years to come."

"You ask, what is our PR exercise here? To me," said Galbraith, "it's just to run out the clock on this administration."