Director of the Charles Center Joel Schwartz and religion professors Tamara Sonn and Hans Tiefel expressed ethical and practical concerns about President George W. Bush's policy toward Iraq. They also discussed the moral implications of preemptive war at Tuesday night's forum on the potential war in Iraq.
Senior Matt Wendeln, the event's organizer, began the forum by speaking about his worries that Bush's humanitarian justifications for the war fall short of true humanitarianism.
"When is the last time that we entered into a foreign policy discussion with such a definitively colonial outlook and came away successful? And came away morally justified?"Wendeln said.
Sonn devoted most of her time to giving a "thumbnail sketch"of Iraq's history, with particular emphasis on historical events that have contributed to anti-American and anti-European sentiments in the Middle East. Sonn criticized what she called a lack of consistency in American foreign policy. According to her, the Iraqi government has changed little since the 1980s, when the United States supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.
"Yes, [Hussein's] people would love to be liberated from him, as they did when we supported him, but not by being bombed,"Sonn said.
Sonn also predicted that war with Iraq would further inflame anti-American sentiments in the Middle East and would therefore increase terrorism.
Criticizing the notion of preemptive war, Sonn said, "We certainly didn't like it when Japan did it to us in World War II."
Tiefel said that perhaps the Bush Administration's reasons for wanting war in Iraq have less to do with humanitarian concerns than with America's need for oil and the administration's desire to appear active in the war on terrorism.
"We have an enemy that we can see and locate, that we know we can defeat, and we'll know when the war is over -- how much more attractive than defending against terrorism at home,"Tiefel said.
Tiefel blamed the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations as much as Hussein for the Iraqi people's suffering.
Schwartz advocated a policy of "aggressive containment"rather than war, adding that Bush should focus his attention on disarmament rather than regime change in Iraq.
"The U.S. attack will not stop Saddam from using chemical weapons,"Schwartz said. "It will cause him to use them."
Schwartz also said that he did not believe the proponents of war with Iraq fully understood the level of commitment in terms of money, time and manpower that a forced regime change in Iraq would require.
"If we attack, we have to be prepared to turn Iraq into the 51st state,"Schwartz said. "It's that level of involvement."