Community reacts to threat of war

By Troy Simpson

Many representatives from the university community are uncomfortable with the United States position regarding the impending war in Iraq.

"I have not seen compelling evidence why we have to do this," said history Professor George Giacomini. "I don't think [President Bush] has made much of a case. If the evidence is there that Saddam Hussein presents a clear and present danger, maybe that is justification to go in allies or not, but the case hasn't been made yet."

Other faculty members said that the United States is missing an opportunity to increase democratic influence in a positive manner throughout the world in exchange for gaining power over natural resources such as oil.

"The alternative [to war] is that we begin to have a foreign policy based on human rights and see ourselves as a nation that has a responsibility to spread our democratic ideals," said religious studies Professor Paul Fitzgerald, S.J.

"We can't see ourselves as a country whose principal project is to make more money and have easier access to raw materials."

However, this sentiment is not necessarily uniform among all faculty and students. Freshman Leigh Phillips said that U.S. citizens probably do not know the full extent of the situation in Iraq due to reasons of national security.

"[War] is not necessarily the best solution, but it might be the only solution at this point," said Phillips. "We should at least trust that [the U.S. government] knows what they are doing [because] they know a whole bunch more than any of us, so we should support them. If we don't, then everything is going to fall apart."

Law Professor and Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good June Carbone said that if the U.S. goes to war with Iraq without the consent of N.A.T.O. and the U.N., then the U.S. would be sending a dangerous message to the world.

"The U.S. is the only superpower left in the world," said Carbone. "I think in that setting, if we insist on a right to go at it alone and a right to impose our will on the world, what we are doing is setting ourselves up to be taken down. We are saying to the rest of the world: 'we have more power than anyone else and we will use it irrespective of what anyone else thinks. Therefore, you, the rest of the world, better get organized against us and you better do it soon because we can't be trusted.'"

However, Giacomini said that going to war with Iraq without the support of N.A.T.O. might not be a major concern of the U.S. government.

"It is my own hunch is that the government is thinking twice about our relationship to N.A.T.O. to start with," said Giacomini. "N.A.T.O. is increasingly becoming a European peace-keeping force in an area that is seen as European. They can do that, but why do we need to do that? N.A.T.O. was created for a purpose that no longer exists."

Nonetheless, Fitzgerald said that making the decision to go to war without the support of N.A.T.O. and the U.N. could change the worldwide view of the U.S. Fitzgerald also said that the validity of U.S. actions could easily be called into question if such prominent organizations do not agree with U.S. policy.

"If Mr. Bush was to change his mind and say that he was going to act unilaterally, then that would be a violation of a commitment that the United States has held to for more than 50 years of working with our allies in Western Europe and the United Nations," said Fitzgerald. "If neither N.A.T.O. nor the U.N. goes with us on this, then that would really call into question the legitimacy of the decision."

Giacomini said that the consequences for acting independently of the U.N. and N.A.T.O. could easily include a global loss of respect for U.S. policies and culture.

"We may be gaining fear, which is another way of keeping people in line, but I'd rather have respect than fear," said Giacomini. "I think we're losing a lot of respect and I'm not sure we're going to get it back, at least in this administration."

One important aspect to look at in any international conflict, said Fitzgerald, is the real motivations a country has for establishing a state of war.

"If you look at history, most wars, especially a war of conquest where it's a major power fighting a minor power, it most often has to do with access to resources or markets," said Fitzgerald. "It's just about money."

Junior David Zwaska said that although President Bush said that the reasons for a war with Iraq pivot on Saddam Hussein's possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and danger to Iraqi citizens via human rights issues, motivation for a U.S. war with Iraq revolves around gaining diplomatic power in the Middle East.

"Iraq doesn't pose any immediate threat to the United States," said Zwaska. "I feel that a lot of our reasons for going in there are geopolitical reasons. Iraq is a very strategic area in the Middle East and controlling that would give us further control over resources such as oil. Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world and securing that would be very beneficial to the United States."

Senior Zach Bongiovanni said that some action might be necessary in Iraq, but that no action should be taken without the consent of the U.N. and with concern for the Iraqi citizens.

"I think we need to be in a position that supports a natural change in Iraq, but I do not think that the United States should take the opportunity to use its power in doing what it wants in Iraq," said Bongiovanni. "We need to do this fairly and always keep the people of Iraq and their wellbeing in mind."

Freshman Dan Riggs said that a war in Iraq is necessary because if the U.S. does not take action militarily, then Saddam Hussein will continue to have the ability to attack U.S. citizens.

"It's really sad that there's going to be casualties, but there's either going to be casualties in Iraq or there's going to be a lot more in America," said Riggs. "It's a selfish way to think about it, but at the same time those are people who are pretty disillusioned because the government-controlled media has destroyed their image of America. In a sense, they already hate us and we're not going to convert them anyway. As much as that's a bitter, nasty argument, it's the only justification you could possibly have for [war]."

If the United States does go to war with Iraq and ultimately wins, Carbone says that the United States still will not have much ability to develop a peaceful region for the future.

"If Iraq breaks up, that creates a vacuum and all of our enemies move in and have greater influence," said Carbone. "If [a peaceful democracy] happens because [the United States] engineers it, it will be perceived by the surrounding countries as a threat to them. They don't want the United States being the ones who dictate the development in that part of the world."

Political science Professor Jane Curry said that the U.S. would have a hard time not killing a large number of Iraqi citizens in a war with Iraq and that doing so would make developing a stable government in Iraq after the war difficult.

"People aren't particularly grateful after you bomb them, and it's going to be very hard given how dispersed the army is in Iraq not to kill a lot of civilians," said Curry. "Furthermore, civilians aren't going to be pleased after being bombed to be told how to reassemble their government afterwards."

In addition to possible problems in Iraq as a result of war, Fitzgerald said that there would be a greater possibility for aggression to be taken out on U.S. citizens.

"None of these countries pose a military threat to us," said Fitzgerald. "None of these countries could beat us in a war. But it's pretty easy for a kid to strap three sticks of dynamite around his body and walk around the middle of Macy's at Valley Fair and blow himself up. They can never beat us in a war, and yet we could fall into the trap of perpetual terrorism. I don't think we want that."

Fitzgerald also said that the desire to go to war could easily mirror a lot of what U.S. culture stands for.

"We tend to solve our problems with violence. The good guy kills the bad guy and that's the end of the story," said Fitzgerald. "I think as a nation and as a culture we have a recourse to violence as a way of solving problems. And of course it never solves the problem, it just changes the problem."

Director of SCCAP Blair Thedinger said that war is a frightening thing because of the amount of casualties that would occur, and that most people who are in support of war do not fully understand the situation.

"I find that most people who desire war have been systematically lied too," said Thedinger. "The Bush administration and the media present the situation as a simple U.S. verses the Middle East [conflict] without recognizing the complex history and power dynamics of the region. I believe that many Americans act out of ignorance and fear, and this is very sad."

Fitzgerald said that although the U.S. government may be calling for a war on Iraq, most U.S. citizens are not particularly interested or informed on international affairs.

"Americans as a people tend not to know nor to care much about foreign policy," said Fitzgerald. "Most Americans can't find Belgium on a map. Most Americans don't know that New Mexico is part of the United States. Americans really care mostly about their communities, families and regional economies."

From a Catholic standpoint, "Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and has inalienable worth and absolute dignity," said Fitzgerald. "Human beings can never be treated as means to an end. If we go to war in Iraq to get easier access to oil, the 500,000 Iraqis that we kill would be means to our end. Our end would be oil and they would be the means of us achieving that end. That would be a horrible sin. That would be a crime against humanity."