A victory for the owl:
Somewhere between hawk and dove on whether U.S. should oust Hussein

By Mary Kate Smither

Cheers of "hear, hear" and "shame" echoed throughout the evening of the College of Communication's Spring Great Debate, leading to a narrow victory for the team arguing that the United States should not "remove Saddam Hussein."

Hussein has been president of Iraq since 1979, one of three countries named by President George W. Bush as the "axis of evil."

The debate, taped by C-SPAN and broadcast live on BU's website, was held in the Tsai Performance Center. Moderating the debate was Bob Zelnick, chairman of the Journalism Department.

Held biannually since 1996, the Great Debate presents a matter of current national importance for argument by two teams in traditional Oxford-Cambridge style of debate. The issue was chosen by Zelnick following the tragedy of Sept. 11 and President George W. Bush's vow to remove Hussein from leadership despite the inability of his father's presidency to do so during the Gulf War.

"I chose the topic because of the importance of Iraq to the President's war against terrorism, the fact that many Americans regard it as a litmus test of the President's leadership in the war, while many others see it as a frolic and a detour which will only serve to erode both domestic and international support for the war on terrorism," said Zelnick, also organizer of the event.

Shilpa Banerji, a graduate journalism student from India, said that although she feels the United States should not remove Hussein, she was somewhat surprised by the outcome of the debate.

"It's not a simple question, because the U.S. can take out Saddam Hussein anytime they want to, but should they?" said Banerji. "Right now I really don't think so."

During his argument against removal, lead debater Lawrence Korb, vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and a former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, stressed three reasons why the United States should not interfere in Iraq politics.

First, the United States must focus on finishing the war in Afghanistan, including rebuilding that country; second, cooperation from other countries is needed not just militarily, but also through intelligence gathering and law enforcement; and finally, there must be resolution between Israel and Palestine before other interests can be pursued.

Joining Korb's team were William Maynes, president of the Eurasia Foundation, which promotes economic and political reform in the former Soviet Union, and Heather Williams, a junior from South Carolina who is in the elite University Professors program concentrating on American foreign policy.

William Kristol, a political analyst and editor of The Weekly Standard, asserted that because Hussein continues to make weapons of mass destruction without inspections, that answering the debate's question is not even a close call compared to other decisions the President must make.

"If you look out five years, which is the only responsible way to do this, and question the risks of leaving Saddam where he is now as opposed to the risks of removing him, the risks of leaving him are much greater, and the benefits of removing him are much greater," said Kristol, leader of the affirmative side of the debate.

Also supporting Hussein's removal were Rend Rahim Francke, executive director of the Iraqi Foundation, an organization dedicated to establishing human rights in Iraq, and Sorboni Banerjee, a COM senior majoring in journalism from Rhode Island.

Student debater Banerjee said she originally was against the removal of Hussein but because of the Sept. 11 attacks, she has changed her views to support a long-term, proactive approach to topple his terrorist regime.

"On Sept. 11, we learned we have a moral obligation to act in advance against those who plan mass murder," Banerjee said.

Negative team student debater Williams countered that such action is neither morally justified, logistically feasible nor in the best interests of the United States.

"There are lots of other actions we can take to attack Iraq," said Williams. "Stronger sanctions are one, attempting to support opposition groups are another. There are plenty of alternatives that we can do instead of a direct, hostile action."

Rachel Hertz, a COM junior, said she came to the debate undecided, but was swayed by the humanitarian arguments of affirmative debater Francke.

"I think it's really important, especially now, that we start focusing on humanitarian issues and not just be concerned about money and everything that goes along with that," she said.

Francke, an Iraqi-American, stressed that Hussein has inflicted terror on Iraqi citizens since he came to power in 1979.

"I want to appeal to the U.S. to do something right in the Middle East," said Francke. "It is time to do something right for the Iraqi people and for the Middle East, to create a moral success story by helping Iraqis change this regime, create a new country, regain their lives and provide dignity."

Completing the argument for the negative side, Maynes said the United States would be wise not to take the position of hawk or dove, but the more middle ground owl, an animal sometimes forced to attack but always looking for better solutions.

"If we create support for the opposition, incentives for proponents of Saddam inside Iraq, this regime can change and it will be done by the people who should do it: the Iraqi people and not some outside force," said Maynes.

At the conclusion of the arguments and a vote by the house for a slim negative victory, a reception was held in the lobby of the College of Arts and Sciences, located just outside the Tsai Performance Center.

"The way the negative side presented their arguments and the way they commanded a presence was really the deciding factor," said Aran McNerney, a junior in both CAS and COM. "The reasons for both sides were equivalent, I just thought the negative side had better arguments."

McNerney said because of the strength of the case made against removing Hussein, he changed his mind during the debate. He had arrived as an advocate for removing the Iraqi leader.

"It was very close," said Zelnick following the debate. "I thought the arguments on each side were so powerful that you really felt yourself swaying back and forth, so it was a great evening. It was exactly what debates are supposed to be."