The Political Science Department witnessed a civil war of sorts last night as Associate Political Science Professor Jeff Taliaferro and Political Science Professor Malik Mufti debated the intervention in Iraq in front of a packed Cabot Auditorium.
The resolution debated on the floor, as introduced by sophomore and moderator Oleg Svet, stated that "the ongoing intervention in Iraq is justified on the basis that it will bring democracy to the Middle East."
Mufti began with a six-minute opening argument, which he used to state his affirmation of this resolution-and poke fun at his colleague and opponent.
"I'm very glad that I get to go first," Mufti said, "because I like Professor Taliaferro and I don't want him to embarrass himself."
Mufti argued that military intervention, while undesirable in most cases, is necessary in rare instances. "Iraq was indeed such a case," he said.
While Mufti said that democratization must come from within a country, he added that outside interference is sometimes needed to begin the process. Complex tactics such as diplomatic measures, economic initiatives, and, at times, military action, can help resolve "explosive issues," according to Mufti.
Saddam Hussein's 24-year regime was "internally genocidal and externally predatory," Mufti said, and the intervention by the United States in 2003 was a "moral" one.
Mufti's final point during this segment was that, while intervention may be morally questionable, non-intervention could be as well. The United States had been criticized for being remiss in not responding to the Bosnian crisis that unfolded from 1991-1995 and the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The death tolls of these events exceeded one million lives.
"People die in war. People also die if we don't go to war. Sometimes not fighting is as much a moral lapse as fighting," Mufti said.
Mufti did note that the current situation in Iraq is not yet stable, but he called Iraqi elections the "start of a new Arab world" and said that the United States was obligated to prepare for a transition of control to the Iraqi people.
Taliaferro, after a short reply, also had six minutes to outline his opposition to the resolution. Beginning with an address to his "dear, sweet, older and deluded colleague," Taliaferro made a case that drew heavily from the Realist school of thought and was highly critical of the Bush administration.
"Since 2003, President George W. Bush has tried to make the claim that...Iraq is the essential theater in the War on Terrorism...[that] only by shaking things up in the Middle East can the U.S. and its allies be secure," Taliaferro said.
Calling the causal links between liberal democracy and reduced terror threat identified by the Bush administration "fundamentally flawed," Taliaferro argued that foreign occupation is, in fact, a precondition of terrorism.
Taliaferro also said that power vacuums created during transition give neighboring states the incentive to intervene to augment their share of relative power. Security threats, not stability, are posed by these actions.
Taliaferro concluded by saying that the United States' efforts in Iraq were "ill-conceived and ill-planned," and that they have "degraded American military capabilities."
Mufti, in respondse, agreed that in the short run, increased terror activity and instability may be seen.
"The real question," he said, however, "is the longer term."
Taliaferro said that a better policy would be one of containment and deterrence, because "in the absence of capabilities, intentions matter little"- a suggestion that even the most threatening states, if left unarmed, can pose little threat.
During the second segment of the debate, students were invited to give brief speeches in favor of or against the resolution. Students for the resolution emphasized that "freedom of choice" is a basic human right which must be protected, and that sovereignty can be violated in the name of promoting democracy.
Opponents of the resolution said that regime change as a justification of war sets a dangerous precedent for international relations. One student went so far as to say that countries that pride themselves the most on being democratic have been "the most effectual in committing the greatest atrocities across the entire world."
"When do sovereign entities forfeit the right to non-intervention?" Taliaferro asked. "Inevitably, when you use moral justification [for intervention] you open yourself to [allegations of] hypocrisy."
In his closing remarks, Taliaferro said that the U.S. must contend with a reality of limited resources, and that troops should be gradually removed from Iraq and deployed in a strategic manner to contain Iran.
"Everyone in Tehran knows that the U.S. is stretched thin," he said, adding that because of a lack of resources, "we must resist the Wilsonian impulse to save the world from itself."
Mufti, by contrast, urged America to "redouble" its efforts to bring democratic government to other nations.
"When governance is good, when rules of law prevail, when economic prosperity is abundant, crises [like what we see in Iran] are abated," he said. "The mythical entity called the 'international community' is not going to solve all of our problems."
Mufti cautioned against blanket statements that condemn the "evils of war" and the "folly of intervention," saying that sometimes, military action is necessary to induce positive change.
A vote at the end of the event signaled strong support for Taliaferro's position. Despite being clearly outnumbered, Mufti jokingly requested a recount.
"That is so Al Gore of you," Taliaferro joked.
