A panel of three professors and one U.S. military commander spoke in a public forum on March 7 about the possible economic, political and military consequences a war with Iraq could bring to the Middle East, Iraq and the United States.
“”As we stand on the eve of war with Iraq, many questions and issues remain unanswered,”” said David Lake, chairman of UCSD’s political science department and the forum’s mediator. “”Our focus today is on the consequences of war for the region, Iraq and for the United States.””
Kiren Chaudhry, a political science professor from UC Berkeley, specializes in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Chaudhry was the first speaker from this distinguished panel, speaking on the regional consequences for a U.S.-led war in Iraq.
“”I believe that anti-American sentiment [in the Arab world] is probably at its height,”” Chaudhry said, talking about the changing views in the Arab world. Chaudhry then went on to focus on Iraq, giving her opinions on the outcome of a war there.
“”There is no doubt that the United States can triumph militarily,”” Chaudhry said, though she went on to speak of the difficulties that the United States and the people of Iraq would face in trying to set up a post-war Iraqi government.
According to Chaudhry, the fragmentation of the country that has resulted from the U.S. and British “”no fly zones”” over Northern and Southern Iraq would make it very difficult for the people to come together under one government after Hussein’s regime is toppled.
In addition, the ethnic and religious diversity in Iraq, with Kurds, Shiite Muslims, Christians and many other groups adds to this fragmentation, and therefore adds to the difficulties in rebuilding Iraq after a war. She also talked about Iraq’s problems with state building and control.
“”[The current situation in Iraq] really represents a complete fragmentation of authority. What this means is that there is really no unified authority to take over from [after the war],”” Chaudhry said. “”The consequences for war, in my opinion, are that there is going to be widespread instability and statelessness of the kind that gave rise to the al-Qaeda network.””
Chaudhry concluded by talking about different potential regional problems that could also rise out of a U.S.-led war in Iraq. Her main concerns in this respect were about the further destabilization of the Middle East. She worries that the Iraq situation could worsen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as destabilize the governments in neighboring countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.
The second speaker of the afternoon was Vali Nasr, who spoke on the possible war in Iraq and the future of Islamic activism. Nasr is a UCSD professor specializing in political Islam, as well as the politics and history of the Middle East and South Asia.
“”The war is coming at a critical time in the Muslim world,”” Nasr said.
He talked about the assumption of many in the Western world hold, believing that the Middle East is “”stuck”” and needs to be pushed along a course of development and democracy.
“”It is actually a wrong assumption, and it is that assumption that will have a lot to do with what kind of backlash we are to see,”” Nasr said, going on to point out that there is evidence of current progress and change going on in various countries in the Middle East. He fears that a war in Iraq will disrupt that change.
“”The consequences of the war, regardless of whether the ground war is long or short, bloody or swift, are such that we will interfere with these changes,”” Nasr said. “”The United States, in all likelihood, will become a Middle East actor and will no longer be able to sit on the fence.””
Nasr added to this by talking about how a U.S.-led war would affect domestic politics in the Middle East countries. One such effect would be the strength of Islamic fundamentalist movements in these countries, much of which stems from opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
“”The war can have the effect of making the United States and its presence in the region the problem around which these forces coalesce,”” Nasr said. “”The Islamic opposition toward local governments is increasingly turning its attention on the United States as the enemy around which to mobilize, recruit and gather strength.””
Providing the military perspective on the Iraq situation was Captain Richard Ray Arnold, the commanding officer of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Tactical Training Group. Arnold began by giving his personal military history, which included operations in the Persian Gulf dating back to 1987.
Arnold discussed the successes that the United States and its allies have had in securing and rebuilding Kosovo, as well as the progress made in Afghanistan, before focusing on his vision of a post-war Iraq.
“”The first to benefit from a free Iraq will be the Iraqi people,”” Arnold said. “”Today, they live in scarcity and fear under a dictator who has brought nothing but war, misery and torture.””
Arnold went on to talk about the preparations that the United States and Great Britain have made to bring humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people in the event of war. He also talked about cooperation with the United Nations to deal with possible problems such as a refugee crisis.
“”The military will play a key role in the rebuilding process,”” Arnold said. “”The key is to assist the Iraqi people in establishing a representative government that does not produce weapons of mass destruction and does not support terrorism.””
The final speaker of the afternoon was Michael Bernstein, a history and economics professor at UCSD specializing in the political and economic history of the United States. Bernstein’s focus was on the “”economic war at home.””
“”To state the obvious, a war in Iraq will pose severe economic problems and challenges for the American economy,”” Bernstein said.
Bernstein worries about problems that may arise from paying for the war combined with a conservative domestic economic agenda. He also spoke of opportunity costs of going to war, referring to a rising defense budget and a decrease in federal spending on social programs.
“”Whether we go to war in Iraq or not, I think an economic war at home has already begun,”” Bernstein said.
Attendees were impressed with the panel overall.
“”I think it was a very productive session,”” Nasr said. “”I was very impressed with the quality of the questions. They were serious questions that went beyond rhetoric and [the students] were asking probing questions about the facts in this matter.””
Students in attendance also found the event to deliver a wide range of insight.
“”I felt that it was definitely interesting,”” said sophomore Affad Shaikh . “”I also liked the fact that there were different perspectives here.””