Debate explores various sides of Iraqi issues and possible war

Moderation was not the key at a Pitt sponsored debate on the issues concerning Iraq.

The… Moderation was not the key at a Pitt sponsored debate on the issues concerning Iraq.

The panel discussion Tuesday night, What Should the States Do About Iraq Now?, invoked passion in all the participants.

The debate, sponsored by the University Honors College, included panelists Bay Buchanan, president of the American Cause and former treasurer of the United States; Robert Hazo, Pitt professor and chair of the Middle East Policy Association; Jack Kelly, national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; and Cyril Wecht, Allegheny County coroner. It was moderated by Donald Goldstein, of Pitt’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

Hazo opened the debate saying that he usually has the position of moderator at such discussions.

“But now I don’t have to be moderate,” Hazo said.

Both he and the other panelists took this statement to heart, sparing no one and making statements attacking President George W. Bush, various European countries and their leaders, and entire regions of the world.

Hazo spoke as a man “ashamed of his country” and president.

“People wonder what the president is thinking. Why do you assume he’s thinking?” Hazo asked. “He is expending millions of dollars to commit the equivalent of geopolitical suicide.”

But Hazo’s argument focused on more than the monetary costs of a war with Iraq.

“Our government does not seem to understand that this will seem to be an attack on Islam,” Hazo said. “Most people will not see us as great liberators.”

Jack Kelly spoke confidently of the United States’ ability to avert military catastrophe on the battlefield.

“Smallpox and anthrax we are vaccinated against. Chemical agents? We are protected against those too,” Kelly said.

He emphasized the plight of the Iraqi people, talking about the possibility that they would sustain the most losses in a war. But, he said, the U.S. government is not unaware of that danger.

“If there is a second Gulf War, it will be the first war in history in which one side will be more concerned with the safety of the people of the country they are invading than that of their own men,” Kelly said.

Buchanan agreed with people who called Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator.

“But we are not going to war simply to remove bad people from power,” Buchanan said. “We are talking today about invading and occupying a country.”

Buchanan questioned the presence of a threat from Iraq. She pointed out that they do not yet have nuclear weapons, that there are “no provable ties” to al Qaeda, and that he has not used a weapon of mass destruction since 1988.

“If indeed Saddam is a threat to his neighbors why do they not want us to attack? If indeed Saddam is a threat to the world then why is the world saying no?” Buchanan said.

She presented possible effects that a war could have, saying that a war with Iraq could “absolutely destabilize” the region, fuel anti-American sentiments in the Middle East, and cause Saddam Hussein to take extreme action.

“The only way that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction, according to United States and British intelligence reports, is if he were attacked himself,” Buchanan said.

Wecht asked many questions and answered some of them swiftly. He began by asking the audience to “remember the past.”

“On March 16, 1988 Saddam Hussein killed 5,000 Kurds. He later killed 100,000 more. He has several tons of anthrax. I ask you, is this a man who is afraid to kill?”

Wecht also spoke energetically against the people opposed to the war.

“Here is a question that I have been asking people, where do your intellectual powers come from to say that Saddam Hussein and other crazy people ruling are just bluffing when they say that they want to march into Israel and push the Jews into the sea and kill the devil Americans? Where do you get the information to say that he doesn’t mean it, that it’s just rhetoric?” Wecht asked.

Germany and France’s stance also came under attack from Wecht.

“What are their motivations? Maybe they don’t like a war if it’s not one that they initiate and control,” Wecht said. “Are we to be held at the mercy of France and Germany? I think it’s a farce that they have veto power [in the United Nation Security Council]. Where is the glory of France?”

He also contended that the Middle East, despite its proclamations of anti-Americanism, takes advantage of the United States and its products.

“Take out every American soldier. Take them out. But also take out all the Levi’s, all the McDonald’s, all the Coca-Cola. Let them have their own world, let them pull themselves up by their jockstraps,” Wecht said.

And, he said, a war in Iraq would be swift and the Iraqis would be grateful.

“If we go in there, those soldiers will throw down their arms and welcome us,” Wecht said.

The question and answer portion of the evening was heated. Audience members asked a variety of questions about the possible war, and the Middle East in general.

When discussing world opinion on the war, Hazo noted Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela’s opposition. Wecht replied, saying “if those are your heroes, then I feel sorry for you.”

The pro-war panelists compared the pre-World War II actions of European leaders to the choice facing today’s leaders.

“I do not agree in the reductum hitlerum. You cannot compare a tinpot dictator [Hussein] to a man such as Hitler,” Hazo said.

Moderator Donald Goldstein closed the evening.

“Look, you came here and you’re not going to change your minds. You don’t have to agree with any of the panelists. But they were undoubtedly passionate, and you came, and that is doing something. We all have to do something,” Goldstein said.