Post by Admin on Dec 29, 2003 13:54:20 GMT -5
Norwich professors speak out against attack on Iraq
October 31, 2002
(from the Central Vermont (Local News) section)
By Mark S. Albury
CORRESPONDENT
NORTHFIELD – Five Norwich University professors shared their views on why military action against Iraq might not be in the best interest of the United States, the region, and the Iraqi people. The public discussion, held Monday afternoon at the school’s Dole auditorium, was sponsored by the university’s history and political science department.
The session began with cultural geographer Stuart McHenry giving the 75 students, faculty and community members in attendance some background on the region.
Following McHenry’s remarks, political science professor Michael Andrew told the audience that, with or without U.N. Security Council approval, President Bush could order an attack on Iraq.
“There is an executive prerogative, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, which allows the president to step outside constitutional boundaries to act to preserve national security,” Andrew said. “Five times in American history we have declared war, but more than 250 times the president has put troops in harm’s way without consent of Congress. When President Bush recently said he did not need approval to send troops to Iraq, he was building on a well established precedent, however, for many reasons this conflict represents a different situation than we have been faced with previously. The question is, should the president use his authority to take action in this case.”
The panel seemed to think the answer was no. History professor Hal Kearsley predicted that using military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein would have disastrous ramifications.
“We’re talking about an inherently unstable region,” Kearsley said. “A change of a regime in Iraq would likely result in a civil war which would adversely affect the surrounding countries. The fall of Baghdad would spill over into Turkey, and we could lose a major U.S. ally. It also could give Iran an oil dagger to hold against the U.S.
“All states in the region could lose,” Kearsley continued. “There is a good chance that Saddam would not go quietly. If he has chemical and biological weapons and he is pushed against the wall, he will use them. These weapons know no international borders.”
History professor Rowland Brucken commented that if Saddam sees himself backed into a corner, Israel might be a tempting target, which would cause a lot of backlash in the region.
“We could look forward to a spike in terrorist attacks both in that region and here in the U.S.,” Brucken said. “Post war consequences might include postponing our economic recovery by adding to our debt and increasing world oil prices. In Iraq there would also be the issues of helping out with a major clean-up, providing humanitarian assistance, and assisting with infrastructure repairs.”
When the floor was opened to audience questions, Norwich sophomore Jevonne Gray asked the panel members whether or not they felt that President Bush started putting emphasis on going to war with Iraq in September because the election season was approaching.
“I hope that it isn’t the sole motivation, but the timing and some of the statements made might have something to do with the elections,” political science professor Dart Thalman said. “There is evidence of this out there which has weighed in on the thinking of many people.”
October 31, 2002
(from the Central Vermont (Local News) section)
By Mark S. Albury
CORRESPONDENT
NORTHFIELD – Five Norwich University professors shared their views on why military action against Iraq might not be in the best interest of the United States, the region, and the Iraqi people. The public discussion, held Monday afternoon at the school’s Dole auditorium, was sponsored by the university’s history and political science department.
The session began with cultural geographer Stuart McHenry giving the 75 students, faculty and community members in attendance some background on the region.
Following McHenry’s remarks, political science professor Michael Andrew told the audience that, with or without U.N. Security Council approval, President Bush could order an attack on Iraq.
“There is an executive prerogative, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, which allows the president to step outside constitutional boundaries to act to preserve national security,” Andrew said. “Five times in American history we have declared war, but more than 250 times the president has put troops in harm’s way without consent of Congress. When President Bush recently said he did not need approval to send troops to Iraq, he was building on a well established precedent, however, for many reasons this conflict represents a different situation than we have been faced with previously. The question is, should the president use his authority to take action in this case.”
The panel seemed to think the answer was no. History professor Hal Kearsley predicted that using military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein would have disastrous ramifications.
“We’re talking about an inherently unstable region,” Kearsley said. “A change of a regime in Iraq would likely result in a civil war which would adversely affect the surrounding countries. The fall of Baghdad would spill over into Turkey, and we could lose a major U.S. ally. It also could give Iran an oil dagger to hold against the U.S.
“All states in the region could lose,” Kearsley continued. “There is a good chance that Saddam would not go quietly. If he has chemical and biological weapons and he is pushed against the wall, he will use them. These weapons know no international borders.”
History professor Rowland Brucken commented that if Saddam sees himself backed into a corner, Israel might be a tempting target, which would cause a lot of backlash in the region.
“We could look forward to a spike in terrorist attacks both in that region and here in the U.S.,” Brucken said. “Post war consequences might include postponing our economic recovery by adding to our debt and increasing world oil prices. In Iraq there would also be the issues of helping out with a major clean-up, providing humanitarian assistance, and assisting with infrastructure repairs.”
When the floor was opened to audience questions, Norwich sophomore Jevonne Gray asked the panel members whether or not they felt that President Bush started putting emphasis on going to war with Iraq in September because the election season was approaching.
“I hope that it isn’t the sole motivation, but the timing and some of the statements made might have something to do with the elections,” political science professor Dart Thalman said. “There is evidence of this out there which has weighed in on the thinking of many people.”