A panel of three professors and one veteran discussed the Iraq war in front of an overflowing audience in the Culp Center on Nov. 1. The debate was co-sponsored by the Philosophy and Amnesty International clubs. “We wanted to expand people’s perceptions,” said Hunter Bradford, philosophy club president. “We wanted to let people look at the issue from many different angles.”

The debate began with a statement from each panel member and was followed by questions from the audience.

Dr. Kenneth Mijeski, chair of the Department of Political Science, was critical of the war. “The justification for the Bush administration’s unprovoked armed invasion of Iraq was fundamentally based on ideological dreams, propped up by the administration’s weak, unsubstantiated, and even bogus intelligence claims,” he said.

Mijeski said the Iraq invasion could set a dangerous precedent that would weaken America’s ability to utilize diplomacy in the future and wondered what would happen if some other nation decided to strike preemptively.

“The U.S. may have opened Pandora’s Box in this respect, and out of that box might emerge regional nuclear conflicts with global implications,” Mijeski said.

Dr. Paul Kamolnick, professor of sociology, supported the decision to go to war. “The military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian police state was and remains justified,” he said. “Despite present difficulties, winning the war in Iraq remains a possible and desirable objective, but a clear definition of victory is required.”

“The only way that the war in Iraq will be lost is here on American soil, as a result of a failure of will and the enemy’s capacity to use our own moral sensibilities against us,” Kamolnick said.

Jason Hurd, a medic in the 2/278th National Guard unit and only panel member to have served in Iraq, disputed the notion that the invasion was justified.

“It’s implicit that the evidence used to justify a war must not only be convincing, but it must also be presented truthfully,” Hurd said. “Through the use of rhetoric and by withholding essential information, the Bush administration made their argument for war seem stronger that it actually was.”

Dr. Michael Allen, professor of philosophy, encouraged the audience to contemplate whether the Iraq war could be classified as a just war, and traced the evolution in the rationale for waging wars over the course of contemporary human history. “The present war in Iraq defies any relevant analysis in terms of traditional just war theory,” Allen said.

Kamolnick said the failures in Iraq had less to do with events occurring overseas than with events occurring in America. “The main components of the American media have been more committed to bashing President Bush and undermining the presidency than winning this war,” he said.

“If it is true that the will to win is as important as the physical capacity to win, isn’t it possible that a systematic campaign to undermine the will to fight could actually undermine the will to win?” Kamolnick asked.

Mijeski disagreed. “The whole notion that support for the war is going to be lost in the court of public opinion, I think, is a scurrilous argument,” he said. “If we have invaded Iraq for reasons that were bogus, then it is not incumbent upon us or upon the liberal press, or conservative press, or any press to have the will to win.”

“Wars that are created in this democracy, in this republic by commanders in chief are their wars. They are responsible for demonstrating that the public deserves their support, and when they don’t deserve their support; it doesn’t serve to blame the public. That is not the way of democracy,” Mijeski said.

The issue of torture arose when one audience member asked whether the ends justified the means in Iraq.

“My preference is to sit down and talk and tell us what you know,” Kamolnick said in reference to questioning detainees, noting that those detained are not granted protection under the Geneva conventions. “I would escalate from that point.”

“From what I understand, certain kinds of intelligence vital to destroying the international revolutionary jihadi organization, which is organized in a decentralized cellular level, cannot be done without interrogation techniques that go well beyond the traditional laws of war,” Kamolnick said.

Mijeski questioned the effectiveness of torture and contested the notion that all detainees were jihadists. “These are people rounded up off the street. They know very little if anything, and the use of these techniques basically reveals that people will tell you what you want to hear if you put them under enough pain,” he said.

Another audience member asked panel members why Iraqis seem to hate Americans.

“The Iraqi citizens don’t hate us. They dislike our presence there,” Hurd said. “The average Iraqi citizen is just like us. They’re driving to work everyday trying to make a living for their families.”

Hurd noted, however, that Iraqis were suspicious of American motives and worry that U.S. forces are planning to build permanent military bases in Iraq. “The longer we are there, the more we confirm this belief and the more this belief is confirmed, the more likely attacks against U.S. led forces will become,” he said.

When asked about the possibility of success in Iraq, Kamolnick said that though the war plan was flawed, there were reasons to maintain an optimistic outlook. “Iraqis are the unintended beneficiaries of a massive failure of intelligence,” he said. “The overthrow of Hussein’s regime has created a virtually unimaginable opportunity for Iraq to create a post-Saddam sociopolitical and sociocultural system based on core values that we share.”

Hurd disagreed. “It seems to me the Iraqi people are not the unintended beneficiaries of this war on terror. They’re the unintended victims of this war on terror,” he said, referring to a recent Johns Hopkins’ study that estimated half a million Iraqis had died from coalition and sectarian violence.

“I’m not saying that Saddam Hussein did not do some absolutely terrible, brutal things, but I think that we’ve created something much worse,” Hurd said. “If pursuing our efforts means not considering the consequences of our actions, then I worry that there is a flaw in our morality.”

“This war is creating a deficit of physical and psychological harm that we just don’t have the means to repay,” Hurd added.

Allen concluded by questioning whether Iraqis share the same ideals as those who want to create a democratic Iraq.

“We’re making the assumption that the Iraqis want democratization. If that is not the case then we may be generating hatred over wanting to see an imperial imposition of our values. The very process of the globalization of freedom, morality and justice according to our conception could very well cause hatred from people who simply do not share that moral vision,” Allen said.

Author