Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
In 1962 the world came as close as it ever has to nuclear war when the Soviet Union and the United States stared each other down in what has come to be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Those 13 days of standoff left the world immobilized by fear of nuclear holocaust and with a taste of what it means to live in a world dominated by nuclear proliferation.
As America comes closer to the brink of war with Iraq, many Americans are debating whether military invasion of Iraq is better then reverting back to the Cold War policy of nuclear deterrence. In attempts to answer these questions, students and faculty gathered Wednesday afternoon in Elkins Auditorium to watch a Web cast debate on the Iraq situation.
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, the debate, which consisted of four distinguished scholars of international relations, demonstrated that this situation is complex and that answers are difficult to come by. After the debate, a final vote in the Elkins crowd showed that 40 percent present favored military invasion, while the remaining 60 percent preferred containment.
John Mearsheimer, an R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service professor and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean and professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University argued that the United States should take the stance of nuclear deterrence.
Walt and Mearsheimer presented six main arguments for an Iraqi containment policy, stating Saddam Hussein’s threat has been exaggerated; the benefits of going to war are modest at best; the political and economic backlash of war will be great; invading Iraq is not in America’s best national interest; definitive links between Iraq and terrorist cells have not been proven despite Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations earlier that day; and lastly that Saddam can be deterred.
Senior Delite Young, an international studies major emphasizing in political science, believes Walt and Mearsheimer’s best arguments were in their use of historical evidence and trends such as the Cold War to prove their points.
“They were able to use historical facts to prove Hussein is deterable,” Young said. “That’s a very convincing argument because many times in political science the best arguments lie from looking at past examples.”
Perhaps the most pervasive arguments against war resided in the political backlash that war would create. Walt and Mearsheimer argued that war with Iraq would distract attention from other dangerous terrorist groups and rogue states as well as jeopardize American support throughout the international community who would view an invasion as imperialistic. They also argued occupying Iraq will promote anti-American sentiment among the Arab nations and fuel terrorist propaganda.
Senior Aaron Konetski, a business and economics major who supported a containment policy before the debate, thought Walt and Mearsheimer presented the best argument. Nevertheless, he said the debate also presented points of views that will cause him to evaluate his stance.
“(The debate) brought up issues I hadn’t considered on the pro-war side,” Konetski said.
Such pro-war issues were raised by Max Boot, an Olin senior fellow and member of the National Security Studies and Council on Foreign Relations, and William Kristol, an editor for the Weekly Standard. Boot and Kristol presented six main arguments for military invasion, including the assertion that the risks involved in going to war are far less than risking nuclear deterrence; Powell did in fact demonstrate evidence that Iraq is linked with terrorist groups; anti-American sentiment actually stems from America supporting regimes like Hussein’s that are oppressive and inhumane; America will be seen as weak and therefore vulnerable to rogue states and terrorist cell attacks if it backs down now; American allies who have supported an invasion will suffer from Hussein’s vengeance if allowed to stay in power and develop weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); and lastly if America allows Iraq to develop nuclear weapons it cannot prevent other Middle East countries from doing the same.
The most profound arguments made by Boot and Kristol were those that argued a policy of deterrence was too risky, claiming that Hussein is unable to be properly deterred and that deterrence was a policy we were forced to adopt with Russia, something that isn’t the case here.
Boot illustrated the risk of adopting a deterrence policy when he stated, “The only time you don’t know (deterrence) is working is when you are attacked.”
He added that in nuclear deterrence the lives of millions are waged on whether both sides can be rational and that Saddam has not shown himself to be a rational leader.
Senior Loriana Guidi, a senior political science major, said Boot and Kristol answered her only two reservations for military invasion.
Guidi said her doubts rested in whether the United States could continue to conduct a war on terrorism while fighting in Iraq as well as the issue of anti-American sentiment as a result of attacking Iraq.
“(Boot and Kristol) gave good arguments to my two reservations for war,” Guidi said. “(Kristol) made the point that this might improve our image in the Middle East because the reason we’re hated is because we support heinous and oppressive regimes.”
Dr. Dan Caldwell, a Seaver political science professor who organized the presentation of the webcast debate on campus, hopes that events such as this will promote awareness and discussion about international issues.
“I have a strong feeling that students, and more broadly American citizens, should be focused more on a possible war with Iraq because it will have profound implications for a long time to come,” Caldwell said. “I’m anxious as an educator and a citizen to encourage thinking and discussions about a possible war with Iraq.”
Caldwell said students today seem less interested in foreign issues because it doesn’t have a direct impact on their lives, like the Vietnam War draft when he was in college.
That’s why events such as the debate are so important to Caldwell.
“Education contributes to a greater interest in foreign relations,” Caldwell said. “It’s one of the reasons why I enjoy my job because it’s contributing to a more informed electorate and citizenry.”
In fact, it’s possible that events like yesterday’s debate will become more common in the weeks to come thanks to political science professor Robert Williams, and religion professors Stuart and D’Esta Love, who is also university chaplain. They have organized a committee for professors to come together weekly to discuss the issue, pray about it and think of ways to instigate campus-wide discussion about the issue of war in Iraq.
Submitted February 06, 2003
MALIBU, CA
