Panelists blast war on Iraq

In a Houston Hall discussion Tuesday, a panel of Penn professors and visiting professors debated the prospect of war with Iraq -- and opinion was almost entirely against the hardline policy currently favored by the Bush administration.

The discussion, moderated by Penn History Professor Jennifer Siegel, was preceded by brief opening statements from each of the experts on the panel.

The participants talked about a wide range of issues, including U.S. policy towards Iraq, Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, and his actions over the course of the past few decades.

Visiting Professor Aslam Syed, from Pakistan's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that attacking Iraq is not justified, especially because the U.S. had previously helped Iraq build weapons of mass destruction.

"During the Iraq-Iran war, the U.S. aided Iraq in its biological and chemical weapons program," Syed said. "Iraq used those weapons in its war against Iran. Villages were wiped out. Towns disappeared from the face of the Earth. There was not even a word of protest from the United States."

Jonathan Isacoff, a professor at St. Joseph's University, said that an end to the Hussein regime would be in the best interests of the Iraqi people and the rest of the world. However, he said he felt that the Bush administration was making a mistake by talking extensively only about war.

"The Bush administration does not talk in detail about the political situation that would follow the war and this could prove troublesome," Isacoff said.

Joseph Dellapenna, an international law expert and professor at Villanova University, agreed that attacking Iraq was not justified under international law. He also said he feels that the U.S. has not been respecting international law recently.

"The so-called Bush Doctrine of preemption is a break from American tradition and in particular the American tradition of support for the international rule of law," he said.

"This government is taking an imperialistic approach and we should keep in mind the consequences of such an approach," he added.

Stephen Gale, Political Science professor and terrorism expert, said he felt that a war with Iraq would divert attention from the more important war with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

"In my mind, our concern right now should be with the immediate potential of al Qaeda rather than the long term potential of Iraq," Gale said.

Some students at the discussion said they felt that it was one-sided.

"I thought that this was a very unbalanced debate and only the anti-war side of the debate was presented," Wharton sophomore Jeff Goldberg said.

Wharton sophomore Bret Sanner, who is also the chairman of Penn Forum, the event's co-sponsor, said "The discussion was a bit more one-sided than we expected, but the panelists still made very valid points."

The Fox Leadership Program co-sponsored the event as well.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.