War panel addresses idealism, imperialism, rebuilding Iraq

Last night a capacity crowd gathered in Dodds Auditorium in Robertson Hall to hear a panel with professors Cornel West GS '80, Jeffrey Herbst and Abdellah Hammoudi and lecturer Erica Cosgrove talk about the impact of the war in Iraq.

The discussion sponsored by the Global Issues Forum quickly took an antiwar tone when West led off the ten minute panelist speeches.

West spoke about the idealistic underpinnings of American imperialism. He followed the notion developed by Princeton's Woodrow Wilson that Americans must "spread our idealism, uplift and civilize."

He said the roots for these imperialistic tendencies extend all the way back to the formation of the country when Americans saw the country as a social experiment from which others should learn.

Despite these ideals, West stressed the indifference of America policymakers during other times of international aggression like Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

"America doesn't say too much [to other acts of aggression]," West said, "but when it comes to Hussein, the thug that he is, we are concerned about the Iraqi people."

Herbst took the podium next and quickly contextualized the war in terms of its efficient administration.

"I think the war was won in an exceptionally well done manner," Herbst said. "The U.S. pulled off a feat few people thought would have been possible in this period in time."

Herbst went on to suggest that the possibilities for democracy in Iraq in the short-term are poor. Much of the matter rests on what the Iraqi people set for their own collective vision, Herbst said, and these visions will take time.

Herbst also emphasized that the people of Iraq have to legitimize the U.S. response to Iraq.

"So many people have so much vested hope in international institutions and so little trust in people," Herbst said.

In a later question-and-answer period, Herbst argued against West's earlier claim that the U.S. acted out of self-interest in the case of Iraqi aggression, saying that he thought this particular case warranted intervention while some others might not have.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Echoing West's earlier claims of war for the wrong reasons, Hammoudi also attacked American interests in Iraq.

Hammoudi said that above all this is a war "about American power in the Middle East." He said the main motivations for war did not involve humanitarian aid, global terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, but rather "oilfields and airstrips."

"Americans have developed a dangerous poetics of power," Hammoudi said, citing taglines like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "War Against Terrorism" that misrepresent U.S. actions in the region.

Hammoudi urged Americans to try to look past the rhetoric enveloping the conflict and realize that the war is illegal.

Cosgrove stressed the need for Americans to focus on the practical challenges of rehabilitating the country after years of totalitarian rule, armed conflict and economic sanctions.

"This body of [humanitarian] law requires a lot of the U.S. as an occupying power, despite whatever the precise nature of American occupation," Cosgrove said.

It is not in the U.S.'s interest to be seen as wanting to occupy Iraq longer than necessary, Cosgrove said. Of utmost priority, she said, is the task of balancing public perception and action to ensure that the U.S. fulfills its humanitarian duties to the Iraqi people according to international humanitarian law.