Faculty members give their perspectives during teach-in on Iraq war

Faculty panelist Salah Hassan, left, speaks during the university teach-in on the war in Iraq, April 10, in Call Auditorium of Kennedy Hall. At right, the other faculty panelists (left to right) look on: Roald Hoffmann, Judith Reppy and Peter Katzenstein. Matthew Fondeur/University Photography

By Franklin Crawford

As statues of Saddam Hussein toppled last week, fierce urban warfare was reported in Baghdad amid mass lootings, suicide bombings and escalating casualties among soldiers and civilians alike. Meanwhile on a relatively tranquil spring day at Cornell, the war in Iraq was subject for a teach-in at Kennedy Hall. The April 10 event drew more than 100 people to Call Alumni Auditorium.

Following introductory remarks by Vice Provost Isaac Kramnick, four faculty panelists addressed the topic in sequence: Salah Hassan, associate professor of Africana studies and chair of the Department of Art History; Roald Hoffmann, professor of chemistry and Frank H.T. Rhodes Professor of Humane Letters; Judith Reppy, professor of science and technology studies and associate director the Peace Studies Program; and Peter Katzenstein, the W.S. Carpenter Jr. Professor of International Studies and professor of government.

Using citations from numerous international journalistic and academic sources, Hassan's talk, "Democracy and Pre-Emptive Strikes," provided an informed cultural perspective. However, he said, "I am not in any way claiming to represent the Arab or Muslim world."

Of Sudanese birth, Hassan is intimately acquainted with the Arabic world. Among the many topics he packed into his talk, Hassan addressed Arab skepticism of U.S. policy making, despite the alleged passing of Hussein's regime. He said whatever the long term outcome, the strategy of pre-emptive war is immoral.

"It is racist and based on a complete disrespect for Muslims and a disregard for the feelings of millions of Arab peoples," Hassan argued. "It is also based on disregard for international law and order, thereby weakening international institutions that should be entrusted with arbitration and regulations of these laws and rules. It established one country, the United States, the only superpower left on Earth, as the judge and the executioner. ..."

Hassan said Arab distrust of American policy-makers and the Bush administration is more than an Islamic fundamentalist phenomenon. In the past, the United States and its allies have supported repressive regimes throughout the world that thwarted secular democratic efforts at self-determination, he said. America's lack of credibility in the Arab world was compounded, he argued, by double standards in its treatment of Israel and Saudi Arabia compared to other countries in the Middle East, and its disregard for the lives of Palestinians.

"Regarding nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction -- why only Iraq? Why not a nuclear-free Middle East, including Israel? And [many Arabs] also see control of oil and natural resources by the U.S. as the major reason for the invasion of Iraq."

Hoffmann, on the other hand, spoke out in limited support of the concept of pre-emptive action, basing some of his argument on his personal experience. He added, however, that he preferred to seek compromise, in this case, rather than take sides. But even though he deeply distrusts the Bush administration, he felt its pre-emptive strategy was justified. He backed into his argument by way of personal history, reflecting on his childhood in a Jewish community in Nazi-occupied Poland "freed not by angels," he said. "We were saved, in June 1944, by the Red Army," who were there not to save the Jews but to crush the Nazis.

Hoffmann claimed a deep affinity for Israel and has family members there, although he said he has long opposed Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. He said his childhood experience and his ties to Israel contributed to his belief that pre-emptive strikes are sometimes necessary. However, his comments regarding Islamic fundamentalism and extremist political realities in the Arab world later drew sharp responses.

"In my mind the enemy is not just Hussein and, in and after Sept. 11, it is not just al Qaeda, It is a wider alliance of Islamic fundamentalism and secular Arab totalitarian regimes," Hoffmann said. "In those secular states, from Pakistan to Egypt, dictators have struck devil's bargains with their populations, who have traded in their freedom, for what? For the freedom to hate. The greatest sin, teaching young children to hate, is being encouraged by these states. And what a difference in the sermons of their preachers, from ours. These people in their mosques hear nothing of peace or humanitarian aid."

This statement, in particular, upset Gabriela Galescu, who responded during the open discussion period following the panelists' presentations. A Romanian-born Cornell sociology graduate, Galescu said she was disappointed that Hoffmann would speak in such generalities.

"I am from Romania," she said, "and I have a sad story too; we all have sad stories ... but tell me, Professor Hoffmann, you are a scientist: Where is the hard data on the sermons you describe? How many mosques preach this kind of hatred and where are they?"

Hoffmann said his comments were not based on prejudice, but on translations of texts he'd read, and he referred to a Web site posted by Middle East Media Resources that contains texts transcribed from both Arab and Israeli sources.

Reppy's talk "New Technology, Old Realities," emphasized three key points regarding how America procures and develops new weapons systems and the future of American warfare.

"Reliance on high technology has been the American way of war throughout our history and especially for the last 50 years," she said. "This war is not unique in that respect. The increased use of precision weapons, for example, is a continuation of a trend that began in the Vietnam War."

Given our overwhelming force, the enemies we face in the future are not likely to challenge us in conventional warfare, Reppy said. Nor are we likely to change our approach to war any time soon. The Pentagon still thinks in terms of technological capabilities, rather than in terms of the type of enemy, real or imagined, we may face, she said.

"The kind of preponderance of conventional military strength that the United States possesses far more than any other country in the world can only be conquered by weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons and by guerrilla tactics and terrorism," Reppy said.

In a solemn presentation titled "America and a World Disordered," Katzenstein addressed the task of America's post-war occupation of Iraq and the threat of global political disintegration.

"The occupation will be a difficult task. Afghanistan certainly offers a sober reminder of this. Basically the American administration has washed its hands [of Afghanistan] ... the country is in no way pacified. From all recent evidence we have, the southwest of that country is again moving out of American control."

Katzenstein argued that the decision to invade Iraq without U.N. support will ultimately undermine the United States.

"[President Bush] doesn't understand that power, in modern world politics, depends on consent. And without power [that] is considered to be legitimate, empires will often fall under their own weight. By underestimating the importance of the issue of legitimacy and overestimating the power of empire, he [Bush] is likely to risk not only his political future, but ours. By trading in power with consent for just power, we may be bringing about some of the conditions we wanted to avoid -- insecurity and disorder."