Hamilton's April 1 panel on the Iraq war was an impassioned session featuring six faculty members and moderated by government department chair Alan Cafruny. Speaking on the faculty panel were government professors Yael Aronoff, Peter Cannavo, Steve Orvis, Carlos Yordan and Phil Klinkner, and Tolga Koker from the economics department. Following the professors' remarks, a heated question and answer session was conducted.
Cannavo began by addressing some of the moral issues and the quandaries posed now for those who are morally opposed to the war. He pointed out that continuing protests were of value in that they demonstrated to the rest of the world that we were all not of one mind in the U.S. and that they set the stage for a continuance of questioning of the government after the war. He also noted that the consequences of the telecommunications industry's deregulation had significantly stifled debate in the U.S.
Klinkner said that the war, when viewed objectively, is going relatively well but that President Bush had taken a huge gamble in the time and manner in which the war began, a gamble that didn't work out. He said, "The timing of the war was chosen by the Bush administration, but the fact that there is a war is the fault of Saddam."
Yordan reviewed the challenges of reconstructing Iraq and made comparisons with the U.S.' involvement in Bosnia's reconstruction. "Winning the war is easy," he said, "winning the peace is often difficult." He pointed out that the success in reconstruction would depend in part on the participation of the World Bank, the IMF, the E.U., and the U.N.
Orvis predicted that reconstruction would take closer to five years than the one year currently being discussed. "Oil is not a good thing if you like democracy," said Orvis. He also emphasized that the rest of the world fears the U.S. as much as it fears Hussein.
Koker, who is a native of Turkey, addressed the problems related to the Kurds as well as the overall costs of the war. He discussed the possible economic impact of changes in oil prices and asked the audience to consider the opportunity cost of the money being redirected toward the war.
Aronoff warned of the deteriorating perception of the Americans and the U.S. actions in the Middle East and compared our image with that of Israel. She said that perception was far more important than reality in this war. Aronoff went on to question whether the U.S. had met the objectives it had when entering the war-- namely, to continue the war on terror. She cited the $90 billion budget alloted for the war effort and the $2 billion (half the requested amount) given to homeland security. She concluded that the war on Iraq has done nothing for the war on terror but divert attention.
The floor was opened to many who wanted to ask questions and make statements on a wide variety of topics including the use of uranium weapons, a citizen army, the myth of a liberal media, Britain's perception of the war, and the changing relationships in Europe. Heated discussion continued for more than an hour in the Chapel.
