With the possibility of war with Iraq imminent,
opinions on President Bush's foreign policy and the situation differ widely in
places from the United Nations to New Mexico State University.
Local residents have protested in Las Cruces, asking for peace instead of war,
while others believe war may be the United States' only option. Three NMSU
professors in the History and Government departments shared their opinions in
interviews last week.
Associate Professor of Government Nancy Baker teaches presidency,
constitutionality and international law. The idea of war troubles her; partly
because she feels Bush is making the same mistakes domestically as he is
internationally.
"He's keeping the decision-making to himself, and that's troubling from a
legal standpoint. The Constitution requires consultation, and Bush is doing
things on his own," Baker said.
Baker said that historically, unilateral pre-emptive strikes have been
considered violations of international law. She said the United States needs to
operate with its allies, and that Bush needs to secure authorization from
Congress.
"Polls suggest most Americans think similarly, that we should take out
Saddam but with support from the U.N.," Baker said. "It's naïve to
think Iraqis will rise up and support us; there will likely be bloody urban
warfare. It will be costly in both money and lives."
Baker is uncomfortable with the way the president is handling other things as
well. She says he is painting a rather rosy picture for the American public of
what the war will be like.
"We need a realistic assessment. If the public realizes it may be costlier
than they first believed, public support could evaporate. I think there may be
some unintended consequences, such as use of biological and chemical warfare by
Iraq," Baker said. "Maybe nuclear as well, though it's not clear
whether Hussein has the means to use nuclear warheads."
Baker feels a war in the Middle East could destabilize the region, having a
negative effect on oil prices and availability.
"Finally, I think rebuilding Iraq will be very difficult after we take down
the regime. There are no institutions in place to step in and take over. Iraq is
operating under a dictator who has dismantled civil institutions. That means
long-term occupation for the U.S. We may need to set up our own leader,"
Baker said.
Other aspects Baker thinks the United States should consider before war involve
a shaky economy, global relations and the president's apparent lack of respect
for Congress.
"It's disturbing to see Bush accuse Congress of un-patriotism. He's acting
more like a monarch than anything. Dissension in Congress is healthy for
democracy," she said. "A lot of us (faculty) are talking about it. Is
war worth the lives of our students and their futures?" Baker asked. She
said many professors are concerned as they see those who will be most affected
in classrooms every day.
Government Professor Yosef Lapid said he feels the situation with Hussein
requires decisive action.
"It's clear that Bush believes the U.S. is threatened. I agree that Saddam
is a problem, and that the Middle East would be better off without him,"
Lapid said. He isn't convinced, though, that a case has been made for immediate
attack.
"The choices are not between inaction and military force. Additional steps
should be taken at this point to test Hussein," Lapid said.
He said he believes those steps include working more closely with U.S. allies
and the United Nations. Removing the possibility of more stalling by Hussein
might be accomplished by putting in place new resolutions that forces him to
respond, Lapid said. If he didn't respond, the situation would be altogether
different. If the United Nations still didn't agree on a move, then America need
not be held hostage by inefficient international policy. Lapid said that now,
however, Americans are not united behind the president to attack. If he hasn't
yet convinced his own country, Lapid believes the chances of convincing European
allies are even less.
"I hope Hussein gets the message that the U.N. and the international
situation is serious," Lapid said.
Everyone needs to be involved in the decision to go to war, Lapid said. Debate
and dissension are important, and people need to feel they can express their
point of view without fear of being called unpatriotic, he said.
"Political remarks from all parties have politicized the debate,"
Lapid said. "Bush questioned Congress on patriotism, and may have gone too
far. Democrat responses may have been too emotional. Discussions of war and
peace can't be mixed with political advantages."
Lapid believes a unilateral strike on Iraq will weaken the global coalition
against terror. He said many European countries perceive the war on terror and
the Iraq situation to be two different agendas.
"The dilemma isn't really military. The U.S. could probably defeat Iraq by
itself. It's more political, and would involve more than a quick military
victory."
Evidence provided by the administration of relations between Al-Qaeda and
Hussein is not conclusive, Lapid said.
"If more comes to light, the situation changes," Lapid said.
"Then the agendas become one."
Lapid said it isn't clear if Afghanistan's Northern Alliance has a counterpart
in Iraq. He doesn't know if the factions that present themselves as options will
support an attack or be a viable substitute for Hussein.
Director of the Public History Program and professor Jon Hunner said he's happy
to see that Bush went to the United Nations.
"For us to go to war, we need U.N. support. I'd like to see more national
debate, however. This isn't going to be like the Gulf War. Some say ousting
Hussein will take about two months, others say much longer. No matter how long
it takes we'll be putting our men and women in harm's way," Hunner said. He
said the costs would likely incur a huge debt. "Estimates for the cost of
this war are around 100 billion dollars," Hunner said. "Where would
that money come from?" Hunner thinks the nation should also have more
debates on the long-term consequences of a war. He wonders if the Department of
Defense should change its name to the Department of Offense.
"I think there's a shift in military policy here. When I was growing up, I
was taught that the U.S. never fired the first shot. This will change that. Will
the U.S. start attacking first? What about our relations with Muslim countries?
This could turn into a war between the U.S. and the Islamic religion if it isn't
over quickly," Hunner said. "Islam would like that to happen. It would
take us back to the Crusades and the Middle Ages."
"The last question we should ask is 'Will this really further our war on
terrorism? Or will this distract us from what's happening in Afghanistan and
with Al-Qaeda?'"
Other university professors said they were glad the question was being asked.
Assistant Professor for Communication Studies Suzanne Buker said she feels the
idea of war with Iraq is frightening. "We would be opening a Pandora's Box
in terms of the entire Middle East's response," Buker said. "This
would solidify our world image as an aggressive country that is targeting Iraq
without evidence of provocation. This war may be interpreted as only a move to
secure oil." Buker said that Bush's response to Saddam Hussein's apparent
willingness to allow weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq suggests that he
intends to invade Iraq regardless.
"He's doing a lot of saber-waving. I think working less defiantly with the
U.N. would provide a more cooperative international posture," Buker said.
She also said she believes it is a crucial time in domestic politics, which is
being hidden by the wartime strategy that dominates the news. Buker believes the
Homeland Security approach is silencing opposition within the United States by
challenging American patriotism.
Department Head of Journalism and Mass Communications Frank Thayer said he
thinks that Bush is making the right decision. He said he knows many of his
colleagues would disagree with him, but thinks there really isn't any
alternative.
"I think this is an unusual international situation in that it can't be
addressed in a traditional declaration of war scenario. Dealing with Iraq
requires an extraordinary decision, and one that not all Americans will agree
with," Thayer said. "If you look at all of the U.N. resolutions in the
last few years, Iraq has ignored them all."
Thayer said he didn't know how imminent the threat of Hussein's possible
possession of biological weapons was, but that he believes U.S. intelligence has
weighed that threat thoroughly.
Management Professor Grace Ann Rosile said it seems that there is a lot of
feeling that war is the right response, but she doesn't agree.
"I have a lot of respect for those that want to fight and protect our
country," Rosile said. "But violence creates more violence. It's easy
to get caught up in paranoia and fear. If you're looking for a reason to strike,
you'll find one. If you look for reasons for peace you'll find those too."
Rosile's husband, David Boje, also a management professor at the university,
said he's also against a war. "I served my country in Vietnam," he
said. "I learned that war is idiocy. I don't think Hussein is a threat, and
that there are other ways to deal with the situation."
Boje said the U.S. public is not hearing the whole story from the government.
"After Vietnam, I don't believe much of what is told to me," he said.
Vice Provost for International Programs Mary Baca said the United States must
see what Hussein does next. "I think we need to allow the weapons
inspection process to occur before we start bombing," Baca said. "I
realize Saddam Hussein is not the most honest person, but we need to see what
happens first."
She said that she didn't have solutions, but doesn't readily support an invasion
into Iraq.
"If enough countries decide that's what we should do, I'd probably support
the U.N. taking action," Baca said.
