Last night at the Carter G. Woodson Institute's roundtable discussion on war with Iraq, the debate over the conflict turned away from vocal protest and toward the impending ramifications of current U.S. military action.
Each of the four professors and one journalist opposed the war in Iraq for a variety of reasons.
Asst. Commerce Prof. Corey Walker said this was the Woodson Institute's fifth roundtable discussion, bringing University professors together to discuss a current issue.
"As opposed to when 9-11 happened, consensus is now fragmented," Walker said. "We want to continue the necessary and critical dialogue on the war in Iraq."
Religious Studies Prof. Jim Childress emphasized what he described as the grim aftermath of war in Iraq and what the American administration should do next.
"What now? We're in the war," Childress said. "The best thing would be to finish this war as quickly and cleanly as possible."
Helena Cobban, a freelance journalist, questioned whether it is feasible to bring democracy to Iraq after a U.S. military occupation.
"No inner authority within Iraq has asked to be liberated," Cobban said. "It is going to be much more difficult and expensive than the current administration is prepared to handle."
William Quandt, vice provost for international affairs, also focused on what difficulties lie ahead in democratizing Iraq.
Although Quandt would love to see democracy in Iraq, he said he has no idea how anyone would be able to make that happen.
"I don't know how to answer these questions regarding democratization, but we're bound to alienate many Iraqis that we promised a better life," Quandt said.
Politics Prof. Robert Fatton said the war in Iraq shouldn't surprise America because it is a continuation of American imperialism, which he called the "latinization of American politics."
"This war is the globalization of dominating American policies like those used in Latin American countries in the past," Fatton said.
Politics Prof. Michael Smith discussed what he said he thought were the administration's ambiguous reasons for going to war. He also touched on how individual Americans respond to what is happening.
"We are lulled into an acquiescence," Smith said. But the Iraqis "are being killed in our name and frankly I'm ashamed."
Third-year College student Greg Butler said he was persuaded by the panelists.
"I had resolved to support the troops, but I'm more persuaded now to stopping our military progress and having the U.N. solve the complications in Iraq," Butler said.
Second-year College student Ilya Kostyukovsky said he supports the war, but came to hear what he expected would be the opposite point of view.
"We all know that academia is overwhelmingly leftist," Kostyukovsky said. "It's important to understand the other side."
Second-year College student Yana Chertihin said she was disappointed that the panelists only represented one side of the debate.
"Although I agreed with the majority of the points made by the speakers, I would have liked to have heard the other side," Chertihin said.
Read More
Student Council passes proclamation to partner with U.Va. Wise SGA
By Lauren Seeliger | YesterdayThe dually elected representatives of each student bodies recognize the importance of embracing a strong working relationship.
Board defends DEI decision, avoids questions about DOJ in letter to Virginia GA
By Brendon Bordwine | YesterdayIn the letter, Debevoise partner David A. O’Neil reiterated that the Board could not speak on negotiations and discussions with the Justice Department.
A look at Virginia law: Could U.Va. have fought the Department of Justice?
By Cecilia Mould | 2 days agoEven if Ryan had felt he had a strong case against the Justice Department’s investigations, would the Virginia legal system have allowed him to seek supportive legal counsel?
