This is my random collection of random thoughts. fnord
Skip to the end.
April
4 April 2003

Forum in the War in Iraq

Last night there was a forum on the war, presented by the Office for Social Justice. The three presenters were history professor William Arnett, religious studies professor Aaron Gale, and political science professor Joe Hagel. The set up was to be a brief talk by each of the presenters (about ten minutes) followed by a question and answer session. Unsurprisingly, the presentations ran longer than ten minutes, but that was okay, because there was a lot of background material to cover and ten minutes was a very short period of time in which to do so. Enjoyably, there was no decisiveness from any members of the audience, which could have been quite likely considered that this topic has been polarized even further in recent days.

Professor Arnett started the presentations, and, unsurprisingly for anyone who has had him for class, he ran over this time limit. This was not, again, a bad thing though, because there were about 6000 years of history to cover, and it is impossible to cover that much information in such a short period of time. Starting in about 4000 BCE there were a long succession of state and empires in Mesopotamia—the land now known as Iraq. We have written and archeological records for the past 4000 years of history for this region, both Mesopotamia and Egypt, known as the cradle of civilization.

Following the death of Alexander the Great in 323, there were three major changes in that area. In 637 CE the Arabs conquered Iraq, and the victory over the Persians in Kadesia (sp?) is celebrated even today.

Starting at about 750 CE there was the Abassid Dynasty, stretching from India to Morocco, which is considered by most Muslims to be the “Golden Age” of Arab history, and its loss is lamented by Arabs even today. This era was a time of great cultural explosion that eventually lead to the European Renaissance.

In 1258, the Mongols swept in and destroyed the Abassid empire. Baghdad was practically destroyed, and the river was supposed to have run red with blood and black with ink, from all the bodies and books thrown in. This destruction also included damns and dikes and other waterways, that meant that Iraq could not regain its production potential. This was a great loss, for it is believe by many scholars that Southern Iraq was the prototype for the biblical garden of Eden. There was then the (Persian) Saffavid Dynasty which lead to the Ottoman empire, which then ruled the area until they lost control to the British and the French in the 20th century.

In 1918, following WWI, the European powers of France and Britain came in and made borders and created countries where none had existed before. When George Bush Sr. talked about “drawing a line in the sand” in the 1991 Gulf War, this is what came to mind for those throughout the middle east. Not a showdown between Iraq and the US, but a colonizing force coming in to control the area. It was Sir Percival Cox of Britain who was behind the creation of states where none had existed before, from a mandate to bring independence to the region. In the former Mesopotamia, Britain put together three groups, the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shi'a to create Iraq, a country with only 27 miles of coastline. The resulting situation lead almost immediately to riots against British control, which led to the decision to give Iraq a king. From here there were almost continual coups and changes of regime until the final revolution brought about by the socialist nationalist Ba'ath party, which Sadaam Hussein eventually came to lead. His agenda came out rather quickly with his 1980 attack on Iran, based on a border dispute over water ways in the region near Basra. This war caused unbelievable casualties, that was finally resolved with a ceasefire, but this ceasefire was soon followed by the attack on Kuwait that led to the 1991 Gulf War. Although Kuwait was attacked under Iraqi claims of legal possession of the territory, these claims which were dubious at best, had been repeatedly rescinded by earlier governments.
Religious studies Professor Aaron Gale, spoke next addressing the issue of religion in this conflict. He stated that violence in the name of religion has existed since the inception of those religions, and this is caused by the dreaded M's: misunderstanding, misinformation, misconceptions, mistakes and missed opportunities.

He cited the examples of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, which was immediately assumed to have been done by an Arab terrorist but was instead perpetrated by a radial Jew, and the bombing in Oklahoma City, which was again believed at first to have been done by Arab terrorists, but was discovered to have been done by am American, and finally after 9-11, the immediate assumption was that Islam is a religion if violence and hatred, but again this is also not true. In the Qu'ran murder is a serious offense. Although it is acceptable to fight in self defense, it is not acceptable to take the offense.

He also talked about the misconception that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always been at odds, but in fact there have been many times where all three have gotten along well, and all three contain similar precepts. One's complete submission to God, and compassion for others are hallmarks of all three faiths. He mentioned the quote “Religion invokes the spirit of compassion” (unfortunately I could not write fast enough to get the rest of the quote)

He also mentioned the fact that there are many principles and precepts that the three religions hold in common. Of course, he said, there are legitimate difference between the faiths, but there are often distorted and skewed, so it is important for people of all three faiths to sit down together, because education is what will allow us t come to an understanding and live in peace with each other.

Political science professor Joe Hagan spoke of the situation in Iraq from the long view of a political scientist. Of all great conflicts, this war is really dramatic and propelled by 9/11. He also talked at depth about the differences in the current administration. There is a hard line group, composed of people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and a more pragmatic group composed of Colin Powell and Richard Armatage (?). The hardliners came in with the idea that something needed to be done about Iraq, for their particular focus was security concerns, and Iraq was seen as a major security concern.

This is the first time since WWII that the U.S. has acted unilaterally and overruled our allies. This war has been a dramatic showing of the effectiveness of the military power of the U.S. and, compared to Vietnam, at little cost. However, Shock and Awe did not work, and there may be an example of the deep divisions within the administration. The hardliners were for a massive air campaign, and the debate the ensued from this is unheard of in American history.

He also pointed out that this conflict raises three fundamental questions.
  1. What is the future of post war Iraq be? Will the U.S. put in it's own government and occupy Iraq or will we turn Iraq over to the UN. Should authority over a post war Iraq be shared with the UN or will we control Iraq completely? This is also a subject of great debate between the hardliners and the pragmatists, with the hardliners wanting to keep control over Iraq and the pragmatists wanting to work with the UN and other countries.
  2. The second question is what is our larger strategy? Will we next move on to attempt to control Iran or will we attempt again to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
  3. The third question is one of power diplomacy. Will the US act unilaterally in the future or will we work with international coalitions in the future? Again, we have a division between the hard liners and the pragmatists, with Powell and the British in the camp of the pragmatists.

Questions followed this, and primarily had to do with where we go in the future? Is the US likely to take unilateral action again? How are other countries going to react to the precedent that we have set? There was no real answer to these questions, unfortunately but all three presenters suggested that education is the key.

What impressed me most about the entire affair was the fact that everyone remained calm, there was no shouting or even hostility throughout the process, which, considering what has been seen on the streets throughout the world, is most impressive. Of course it could just be that those who had already made up their minds felt no need to come to an education session, but either way, it was a pleasant and educational experience.


Back    More Writing
If you want, you can e-mail Me