In November of 2002, Penn Faculty and Staff Against War on Iraq held this Teach-In.
Dr. Licht chaired the session. His introductory remarks pointed out that the unilateralist position recently adopted by the Administration is unprecedented in this nation. The rush to war has come without apparent opposition — and without criticism by the media. Brakes should be applied to stop this runaway history, but this will happen only with world-wide protest.
The Administration tells us our goal is "regime change" in Iraq. And if we had a coalition effort, we might be able to effect regime change. As a constitutional scholar, however, Dr. Smith is concerned whether a war on Iraq will instead bring about a regime change in the United States — a change in the expressed purpose of our nation such that, for the first time in our history, we accept the US as an openly imperialist power.
Influential policy advocates close to the Administration now advocate accepting our imperial role; for example, Irving Crystal. Enthusiasm as recently grown for an imperial view of our nation (Thomas Donnelly, Richard Haas, etc.). These advocates are saying we must accept an imperial role.
In the past, we have had to excuse imperialist actions, because we portrayed ourselves as a peaceful, anti-imperialist republic. In the past, only radicals have accused the US of imperialism. So, it's frightening to see voices close to the Administration now embracing the idea of the US as an empire. So far, the Administration itself has not publicly said that we are an empire, but "the world's only superpower" has embarked on a unilateral, pre-emptive war!
Charles Schwab has said, "A war in Iraq will raise the economy." That's imperialism. Is that really who we want to be as a nation? We should instead use our admittedly pre-eminent position in the world to embrace multilateral approaches to peace.
The enemies of the War on Terrorism are unspecified — and could be anyone. The War on Terrorism is providing a sense of mission for empire. It will enable us to be a new American empire. We must ask, "What does it profit a nation to gain the whole world and lose its own constitutional soul?"
Dr. Lustick began his remarks by unfurling an American flag. He said that one of the mistakes of the anti-war movement of the 1960s was to position itself as anti-flag. Every demonstration must include an American flag — if only to keep the cops from beating you.
Dr Lustick next raised the question: Where is the demand for this war? Why is there more demand now than a few years ago? How is Saddam Hussein more threatening now than he was in the past? Questions like this have not been answered.
There is no demand for this war. Instead this is a supply-side war.
9/11 unleashed a change in this country. It created fear and relaxed criticism. We broke the power of the Taliban. (We're good a breaking things. We're not as good at fixing things.) After 9/11, political capital was in ready supply! The Administration is using this oversupply of political capital to achieve its goals while the window of opportunity created by fear still remains open.
Washington wants to keep the number of images of 9/11 high, because it serves their political purposes.
Kenneth M. Pollack's book The Threatening Storm is the best book on the war. He advocates a war on Iraq, but only if we can meet three conditions first. One of those conditions is being willing to pay the costs of the war, including tens of thousands of American dead. Another is the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Pollock, without meeting those conditions, a war on Iraq is not advisable.
The consequences for the Middle East of a war in Iraq do not provide the best grounds for opposing such a war. Instead, the war must be opposed on principal. (A copy of Dr. Vitalis' speech that provides grounds for opposing the war is available online.)
Even after the war, we'll have trouble figuring out what its consequences were. How much more difficult it is to predict them now.
The common sense approach is that life will be more or less the same in most of the area from Yemen to Uzbekhistan, and that the impact on the US will also be low. We've insulated ourselves from the kinds of problems we'd cause. We are not threatened in any fundamental way.
In discussion, it was pointed out that if the consequences are so unpredictable, it is unjustifiable to destroy life in order to achieve them.
Dr Herman said that Hussein is a nasty man, but the idea that this justifies regime change is hypocritical. We have supported brutal dictators for decades. In fact, we supported Hussein's use of chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s — while it served US interests. Hussein was using them against Iran.
The claim that these weapons pose a threat against the US is phony and covers a hidden agenda. Saddam Hussein will save the few weapons that he has for defense. He doesn't have enough to attack the US; he knows that any attack against the US will be met with a retaliatory response of superior firepower.
Dr. Kashani-Sabet spoke as a person born in Iran, who is speaking out against the war because of its potential impact on Iraqi society. There are many disparate elements of Iraqi society that will need to be dealt with if Hussein is toppled from power. For example, Kurdish nationalism will be a major problem, and we haven't thought through how to deal with such problems.
Dr. Kashani-Sabet ended her talk with a quotation from Benjamin Franklin, "There never was a good war or a bad peace."
Discussion after the speeches raised a number of useful points. Here are some selected notes.
Spencer Witte (an organizer of the Student March and Rally) said, "You don't have to be a radical to oppose this war."
When you demonstrate against this war, act like grown-ups.
The covert purpose of this war is to redefine politics in a way that one wing of the Republican Party can seize control of the US government for years to come.
Larry Gross pointed out that the anti-war movement of the 1960s was marginalized until it included enough parents. Students should get their parents involved sooner rather than later.
Check out the excellent article in the current New Yorker, "The War Has Begun."
We need to write indignant letters to the media and to our representatives.
This summary is from Jay Treat, who bears responsibility for any unwitting misrepresentations or failings in presenting the expressed views of the speakers. Not surprisingly, the speakers represented diverse points of view and occasionally disagreed with one another.