Experts See Problems Ahead for U.S. Effort to Rebuild Iraq
Both pro- and anti-war faculty members say U.S. must move quickly and carefully to build democratic institutions in Iraq
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Four political scientists, representing anti-war and pro-war positions, found common ground on Monday night: They all worry about the long-term negative consequences of the United States-led effort to depose Saddam Hussein.
In a panel discussion that drew a standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 to a Biological Sciences lecture hall, the professors worried that the U.S.'s unilateral approach will help terrorist organizations recruit new members, hurt rather than help the Middle East peace process, lower the U.S.'s standing in the world and damage the credibility of the United Nations and other international relationships. The panel was one of several campus events this week focused on the war.
"These institutions were hard to build," said Robert Keohane, James B. Duke Professor of Political Science and a leading international relations scholar. "They are now at risk."
Bruce Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, agreed with Keohane that Hussein poses a threat, but argued that Bush is employing the wrong strategy to handle the threat. He sharply criticized Bush's efforts at diplomacy, saying, "The Bush administration did little but go through the motions. The world had an opportunity at a win-win situation."
Romand Coles, an associate professor of political science, said he is alarmed by "the stunning lack of different voices in the media," and the Bush administration's "attack on democratic processes." He asked: "Where did the U.S. earn the right to unilaterally determine justice?"
"I am not so cynical about the inspections," he said. "It doesn't seem to me that sustaining that course was a ridiculous path," adding that Bush has offered no evidence to support the war.
Peter Feaver, a civil-military relations expert and co-director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, stood alone as the only pro-war voice on the panel, and even then offered only "reluctant support" of the war. He said the United Nations had not been enforcing previous weapons sanctions, and only through Bush's focus on the issue did Iraq face a credible source of enforcement.
"It would have been bad to retreat," he said.
Wednesday evening, four Duke professors and about 25 audience members took part in a separate discussion about the future of Iraq.
Panelists discussed the difficulty of rebuilding the war-ravaged nation and drew parallels between U.S. government plans for the region and its British colonial past.
"[Bush] has begun a new era -- marked a point where this imperialist project can begin," said cultural anthropology professor Katherine Ewing. Òhis opens up possibilities for a new world order we can't even imagine."
Religion professor Ebrahim Moosa gave a heartfelt talk that moved one audience member to tears. He read poetry and excerpts from Tolstoy, and drew parallels to the crises that have shaken his native South Africa.
"We need to mourn," he said. "If we want to humanize ourselves, we have to mourn the dead."
In addition to Ewing and Moosa, Miriam Cooke of the Department of Asian and African Languages and Literature and Bruce Lawrence of the Department of Religion also took part.
Sally Hicks contributed to this story.
