In an inaugural series of lecture events for the sophomore class, professors from various departments expressed widely divergent opinions on the route that President George W. Bush's administration should take in dealing with Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein.
The panel of five professors discussed issues involving cultural and international perceptions of the United States and its role in the world, whether war against Iraq would be just and prudent and speculation on how domestic politics and the recent election will influence the actions of the Bush administration toward Iraq.
The key area of disagreement focused on potential war with Iraq, which evoked views from an array of ideological backgrounds and political inclinations. James Joseph, professor of the practice of public policy and former U.S. ambassador to South Africa, took an adamant stance against unilateral U.S. action and framed his argument in moral tones. "[War] goes against the values that define us as a people," Joseph said.
On the other side, Peter Feaver, associate professor of political science, condoned unilateral action by assessing the underlying reasons for a multilateral approach. He took a different moral stance by questioning whether it would be morally illegitimate to go to war without U.N. approval.
"Why should the calculations of France be morally superior to our own?" Feaver asked.
Robert Keohane, James B. Duke professor of political science, countered Feaver and argued that U.S. unilateral action would not have the necessary credibility in the eyes of the world. "Our European allies are extremely unhappy with [U.S.] unilateral actions," Keohane said.
Bruce Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, echoed Keohane's viewpoint, stressing multilateral action as the most viable and credible approach to handle the situation.
"We need a strong [security council] resolution targeted to strong coercive inspection," he said.
Jentleson agreed that not only must the United States be willing to cooperate, but the major countries such as France and Russia must also compromise to achieve a multilateral arrangement. "Ultimate credibility of the international system rests on this cooperation," he said.
The forum also addressed the possible consequences of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Ebrahim Moosa, associate research professor of religion, castigated the Bush administration for its imperialist policies and its push to oust Hussein, and questioned the outcome of U.S. action.
"An occupation will mean loss of American lives, but more importantly many Iraqi lives," Moosa said.
Joseph agreed that U.S. action will appear imperialist to many in the world, especially Arab nations.
"I am against the notion of regime change against Iraq because implementing it would seem like imperial conquest to other nations in the world," Joseph said.
Keohane argued for decisive action, yet warned about the potential reaction from Iraq.
"There might be something up Saddam's sleeve... that we're not prepared for," Keohane said. He also emphasized a looser timeframe for action.
"I'd be much happier to talk of action in a year when everyone is inoculated against smallpox," Keohane said.
Feaver took a hard-line approach and questioned whether intrusive inspections were feasible in light of Iraq's refusal to adhere to security resolutions for 11 years. "War is only feasible before Hussein crosses the nuclear threshold," Feaver said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.