Return to AE Contents

Classroom on the Quad
Welcome and Introductions
Bruce Knauft, Faculty Council

Jim Grimsley, Faculty Council

Purvi Patel, College Council

Donna Wong, Campus Life

Iraq: The Challenge of Responsibility
Rick Doner, Political Science

Weapons of Mass Destruction and U.S. Foreign Policy
Dan Reiter, Political Science

A Call to Words
Asanka Pathiraja, Foreign Policy Exchange

Hearing in Eqanimity: Deciding Your Path
Bobbi Patterson, Religion

The Necessity of War with Iraq
Bob Bartlett, Political Science

The Humanitarian Cost of War
Laurie Patton, Religion

A Man of Honor: The President's Noble Vision
Daniel Hauck, College Republicans

Women: War and Peace
Lili Baxter, Women's Studies

The Morality of War
James Tarter, Students for War Against Terrorism

Speak Up or Get Out
Erin Harte, Young Democrats

War Does Not Resolve Conflict, War Is Conflict
Mark Goodale, Anthropology

A War of Liberation
Frank Lechner, Sociology

A Call to Consciousness, A Litany of Questions
Juana Clem McGhee, Institute for Comparative and International Studies

Student Activism: Ways to Be Involved
Erik Fyfe and Rachael Spiewak, Emory Peace Coalition

Cross-Cultural Communication: U.S. and Iraq
Devin Stewart, Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies

The U.S. Has Never Been Alone in the World
William Chace, University President

I believe that the Bush administration has not been responsible—or effective—in its use of American power in Iraq. I also believe that many of those protesting the administration's policy of preemptive attack have failed to offer feasible alternatives.

Bush Administration
Let me first list my criticisms of the administration's Iraq policy.
First, the administration's goals have not been clear. U.S. objectives have included 1) eradicating weapons of mass destruction; 2) stopping global terrorism; 3) enforcing regime change in order to promote democracy and human rights in Iraq and elsewhere in the region; and 4) ensuring stable oil supplies. This failure to clarify objectives makes for fuzzy foreign policy.

And it means that we as American citizens are asked to sacrifice our resources and lives for goals that are unclear. Second, I find it difficult to believe in the administration‚s commitment to democracy and human rights in Iraq and the region. The fact is, many of those
in the administration who have urged an attack on Iraq and Saddam to promote democracy are the same people who supported Saddam Hussein in the past but provided little if any support to Iraqi or other Arab moderates.

I also question the feasibility of this democratizing objective. We know that countries that rely heavily on oil exports tend NOT to be democratic. If we want to promote democracy, we would encourage these countries to reduce their reliance on oil. But by refusing to press for energy saving measures at home, the administration is signalling that it intends for the middle east to continue as a US gas station.

The administration has also shown little understanding of the difficulties involved in nation building. Its statements that the occupation of Iraq can follow the pattern set by the US occupation of postwar Japan reflects ignorance of the Japanese case and of the complexities of present-day Iraq. The more defensible reason for attacking Iraq is, I think, to eradicate weapons of mass destruction and to stop those weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists. But even here there are serious weaknesses in the Bush administration's approach:

First, the administration has not prepared the American people for the probable costs of this conflict which, according to independent analyses, will be anywhere from twice to twenty times the estimate of $70 billion Pres. Bush belatedly announced. Combined with new tax cuts, these expenses will deprive states of funds needed for homeland security; and they will require some $14 billion dollars of cuts in military benefits programs (NYT 3/25/03). Where is the patriotism in that?

Second, by brusquely withdrawing from five international treaties in its first year in office, the US has squandered the worldwide support for anti terrorist efforts we had after 9/11. And in the middle east itself the administration has failed to garner broader support by failing to promote negotiations between Israel and Palestinians.

Finally, the administration's most serious fault has been that it has ignored alternatives to preemptive war. More specifically, it has neglected the possibility of a coercive inspections regime. This strategy would involve a significant increase in the number of inspectors and the establishment of a 50,000 person, US-led multinatinal military force that would enable inspection teams to carry out "comply or else" inspections. This force would establish
both "no flight" and "no drive" zones in areas where inspections were
conducted. It would have a mandate to destroy from the air all buildings from which inspectors were denied entry by Hussein's government.

This "armed inspection" option might have worked. Even if it had not, it would have helped to create a broader coalition through which to launch a full attack on Iraq if this was proven necessary.

Opposition to War
Finally, some criticisms of many of the groups opposing the war.
First, these groups do not always take seriously the need to address American national security concerns. These concerns are real.

Second, there is a tendency to assume that any use of American military power is inherently wrong, unjust. I disagree with that position. The question is not whether the US should use its power but how.

Third, there is a tendency in the anti-war movement to lump all criticisms of the Bush administration and even of globalization together with opposition to the administration's Iraq policy. This weakens the anti war message and undermines the credibility of the messengers.

Finally, opposition groups have generally failed to offer alternatives to the administration's policy of preemptive attack. If critics of US policy are to have real impact, they—we—must offer serious alternatives to address a serious threat. We must show that President Bush has no monopoly on patriotism.