By Laurie Babinski
Editor in Chief
As the latest United States resolution against Iraq hits the floor of the United Nations for last-minute debate and a final Security Council vote that may come today, the debate rages over whether the United States should wait for the support of the U.N. or go it alone and attack Iraq.
And while the debate rages in international circles, two Pepperdine professors brought the question closer to home Tuesday night for a collegial debate in Raitt Recital Hall Tuesday night that pitted international relations experts Dr. Robert Lloyd and Dr. Dan Caldwell.
The two presented arguments for one hour and spent 30 minutes hosting a question-and-answer session hosted by Dr. Nancy Magnusson Durham, vice president for Planning, Information and Technology, in an attempt to justify their positions supporting and condoning preemptive, unilateral military action —attacking without international support and resources — against Iraq as part of the United States’ declared war on terrorism.
“We are unified in the belief that this is an issue we should discuss on campus,” Caldwell, a distinguished professor of political science, said in his opening remarks. “There is no question of a threat, that this is something that has to be dealt with. The question is not if, but when.”
This reality broadsided many students who appreciated the intellectual discussion backed by hard evidence on both sides of the issue.
“It really made the Pepperdine community stop and think,” senior international studies major Neal Murata said.
Lloyd agreed.
“This is a sober and sobering debate,” he said. “But it’s one that we needed to have.”
In front of a crowd that filled the seats and aisles of Raitt and spilled out the doors, the men respectfully disagreed on whether or not the United States has exhausted all other possibilities before launching a costly attack on Iraq.
“We both agree that a multilateral approach is better, but where we split is what happens if we don’t get it,” said Lloyd, assistant professor and coordinator of international studies and chairman of the Center for International Studies and Languages. He argued that all diplomatic and multilateral (action supported by the international community) options have been exhausted.
“This attack is to take out his fangs before he has the chance to use them,” Lloyd said.
Lloyd argued that a unilateral attack is both morally justified and economically feasible. He called Saddam Hussein “a dangerous man,” citing the Iraqi leader’s attack on Kuwait in the early 1990s, his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, and his attempt to secure nuclear weapons.
“The United States has rightly sought limitations on proliferation,” Lloyd said. He also said that Iraq’s blatant violation of international requirements for inspection as presented in United Nations Resolution 682 was a distinct danger for both United States interests and the interests of the international community.
“All diplomatic and legal attempts to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction have failed,” Lloyd said. He also reiterated Hussein’s willingness and ability to obtain such weapons, and emphasized that time was on the Iraqi leader’s side. Failure to act immediately would only increase the danger, Lloyd said.
“(Many countries see) the United States as a unilateral cowboy that rejects international law,” Lloyd continued. “We’re simply asking the U.N. to support international law. … We’re saying, ‘You’re a bully, you’re a threat and the international community has spoken.”
Senior international studies major Jane Kembabazi said that she walked into the debate supporting multilateral efforts, but that Lloyd’s arguments made her rethink her stance.
“I still have reservations about the attack, but now I understand both sides. Dr. Lloyd was able to bring this out,” she said.
In his opening statement, Caldwell agreed with Lloyd that “Saddam Hussein is evil, and I wish he was not in power,” but said that the destruction and misery involved in removing him from power without international support was not justified.
Caldwell, however, disagreed with Lloyd’s interpretation of the success of Iraqi inspections, calling them “remarkably effective.”
“More weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors than were destroyed in the Gulf War itself,” said Caldwell, a former White House adviser.
Caldwell, a former naval reserve officer, asserted that he is not a pacifist but argued that on a broader scale, preemptive unilateral action cannot be justified legally, economically, diplomatically, morally, politically or militarily.
Caldwell began citing lack of international precedent to launch an attack without military provocation from Iraq. He also expressed concern over the economic hit the United States would take trying to fight a war that would cost an estimated $272 billion and 200,000-300,000 soldiers for three months of combat and five years of occupation to ensure stability without allies to underwrite the expense. In Operation Desert Storm, troop resources were pooled and the $55 billion bill was split among 32 nations, he said.
“My fear, quite candidly, is the fear that a preemptive, unilateral attack would cause the recession we’re now in to become a 1929-type depression,” Caldwell said.
Caldwell said that a preemptive attack would have catastrophic unintended consequences and would ultimately make the use of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction more likely as well as increase the chance of another terrorist attack.
He also refuted Lloyd’s assertion that ties exist between the al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Hussein and further stated that a preemptive attack on Iraq could drag Israel into the fight, sending the fragile situation in the Middle East spiraling out of control. In the end, he said the costs of an immediate attack against Iraq not supported by the international community simply outweigh the benefits.
“There are other ways to accomplish our goals,” Caldwell concluded. “ … The frustrating work of diplomacy needs to continue. Don’t put the military force cart in front of the horse.”
Lloyd disagreed, emphasizing that leadership in the situation is key, and that as the world’s lone remaining superpower, the United States has an obligation to quell the Iraqi threat.
“Acting alone is often the code word for saying don’t act at all,” he continued.
Countries refusing to take action because of economic and political interests in the Middle East are only hampering the process, he said. He cited France’s business contracts in Iraq and the debts that Iraq owes Russia as two prime examples of countries that will delay military action to protect their respective interests. Other European nations are also afraid of Saddam but cannot speak up because of Middle Eastern dominance of the oil market, Lloyd said.
According to Caldwell, worst-case scenario estimates have projected that in the case of war, oil prices could skyrocket to $40-50 a barrel.
Lloyd, however, said that “leadership requires you to take risks.
“The U.S. can and should do it, and international opinion will follow,” he continued. “ … If we fail to have consensus on Iraq, when can we ever have consensus?”
The facts were daunting to senior international studies major Alezandra Russell, who said that the arguments inspired her and her roommates to continue the debate at home at length.
“The debate was phenomenal, but frightening at the same time,” she said. “There’s so much information, but they presented it in a way that everyone could understand, a way that was clean, simple and to the point. Watching the news (Wednesday) I was so much more aware of the substantial implications of the debate.”
November 07, 2002