Relying on two very different interpretations of American interests in Iraq, professors debated the pros and cons of war to a full house in the Rotunda last night.
Moderated by William Quandt, vice provost for international affairs, the debate featured University History Prof. Elizabeth Thompson and Miami University Political Science Prof. Adeed Dawisha.
Thompson, speaking against the war, opened her discussion by laying out the historical framework for the United States' position.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq "will be read as a larger pattern of American colonialism in the footsteps of British and French colonialism," Thompson said in her opening remarks."With colonial blinders, we are blundering into a cycle of colonial invasion."
Using many references to invasions of countries throughout the Middle East, Thompson argued that current action was both the product and perpetuation of imperial abuses of power.
"Today, democratic values are corrupted by imperialism," she said.
According to Thompson, the United States now has the opportunity to promote democracy peacefully and "turn its back on colonialism."
In contrast, Dawisha's argument dealt with current, rather than historical perceptions.
He outlined common exaggerations about Iraqi military power.
Dawisha called Iraqi support for Saddam Hussein "negligible," and said Americans need to be careful not to overestimate the duration of a possible war.
According to Dawisha, there are many misconceptions that invasion of Iraq would lead to "destabilization of the Arab world."
Any demonstrations in surrounding Arab nations would take their cue from Iraqis and "if anything, [Iraqis] will be throwing flowers at anyone getting them out of the nightmare," he said.
He also dismissed arguments that if invaded, Iraqi ethnic groups, including the Kurds and Shiites, would be dislocated.
He concluded his comments on a note of optimism.
"If [America] goes on behalf of the United Nations, I don't think military opposition will be that long or that devastating," Dawisha said.
Dawisha, who was born in Baghdad, Iraq, brought a pro-war stance that had not been discussed on Grounds before, said Lara Aryani, political chairwoman of the Arab Student Organization, the group primarily responsible for organizing the debate.
He understands certain things about the government that those without personal experience in Iraq do not, Aryani added.
ASO Vice President Samar Katnani also said she felt it was important to get an Iraqi perspective on invasion.
"When people discuss this war, it tends to be in intellectually abstract, U.S. based feeling and they disregard the fact that there are people out there," Katnani said.
In addition to the ASO, sponsors for the event included Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., the Muslim Student Organization, the Department of Politics, St. Paul's Church and the Islamic Society of Central Virginia.
Read More
Department of Education reverses course, awards Federal Executive Institute to U.Va.
By Ford McCracken | 2 days agoThe ED had previously awarded the institute to Charlottesville City Schools.
Students reflect on the life and legacy of Pope Francis
By Bertie Azqueta | 2 days agoAt the University, students shared a range of perspectives on his legacy of reform, inclusivity and his impact on the global Catholic community.
What does the University’s contract with dining service Aramark entail?
By Brandon Kile | 3 days agoThe Cavalier Daily submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the University for its contract with Aramark to understand the specific terms of the agreement.
