| The great Iraq debate On the three-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion, students from the Washington Semester in Journalism convened a debate on the war BY MIKE UNGER American missiles began flying through the Iraqi night three short, yet long years ago. Then, politicians and pundits offered up hopeful predictions of a swift U.S. victory and a seamless transition from the despotism of Saddam Hussein to the promise of democracy. More than 1,000 days and tens of thousands of deaths later, the question of who is winning or losing remains hazy; unmistakably clear is only the fact that the war continues. On the three-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion, students from the Washington Semester in Journalism convened a “Great Iraq Debate,” offering up their opinions as to whether the war was just, who’s prevailing, and how it ultimately will end. 
Photos by Jeff Watts
Professor Iris Krasnow watches her students Kelly Walker, left, Jon Dworkin, center, and Jarred Irmas debate the war in Iraq. The range of beliefs spanned the political spectrum, making for a lively and engrossing conversation, exactly what Professor Iris Krasnow had in mind for her class. “I think it’s important for them to know how to articulate their opinions in an educated way that’s not emotional,” Krasnow said of her students, who are now studying column writing. “So many talking heads just sprout their opinions off the top of their heads. You’ve got to know how you feel about these important issues. I wanted the students to understand why they felt the way they did about the war in Iraq.” The debate consisted of five segments in which a person from the political left, center, and right each addressed a different facet of the war. Kelly Walker believes the United States had no right to attack Iraq. “We believe America should never have entered Iraq,” she said. “The Bush administration used the attacks on 9/11 to justify entering Iraq. The WMD (weapons of mass destruction) excuse was a totally unfounded excuse. The U.S. broke international law by attacking Iraq unilaterally. It doesn’t set a good example to the rest of the world.” Speaking from the conservative point of view, Jarred Irmas disagreed, saying that intervention was in the best interests of the United States. “War with Iraq was inevitable,” he said. “Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and to us, and the threat was serious enough for action.” Perhaps the most fascinating dynamic of the debate was the presence of a moderate, Jon Dworkin, appropriately sitting at the middle of the table in the front of the classroom. As to whether the United States should be in Iraq, Dworkin agreed with Irmas. “It was the right thing to do at the time,” he said. “There’s no question there was a point when Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein was gassing thousands of his countrymen. More importantly than whether we should have gone in three years ago is should we be there now. We believe that we can’t justify leaving. We need to help put a stable government in place before we can think about getting out. What is it going to lead to if we walk out and leave anarchy? We need to stay until the job is finished.” Since the start of war, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have been killed, and estimates have placed the number of dead Iraqi civilians upward of 30,000. In recent weeks the death toll has continued to rise, prompting a renewed debate on whether the United States actually is winning this war.
Kaade Wallace and Dworkin discuss the issue. |
From the right, Mark Kelly said that he believed we are, pointing to increases in the number of trained Iraqi security forces. Kaade Wallace disagreed, questioning the competency of those Iraqi troops. On this point, Dworkin sided with the left. “This war is a winnable war, but the fact is right now we are not winning,” he said. “Former Prime Minister [Ayad] Allawi said this is a civil war, and if this is a civil war then we are not winning.” During a White House press conference the day before the student debate, President Bush said the United States probably would maintain a military presence in Iraq at least through the end of his term. That statement provided the backdrop to the question of the U.S. exit strategy. Alex Lugosh laid out a set of five criteria he believes must be met before the United States can leave. These included the presence of a more effective Iraqi security force, the inclusion of Sunnis in an Iraqi government, a reduction in the number of Jihadists operating in the country, and a greater national—rather than ethnic—identity among Iraqis. Dworkin said the exit strategy will be decided in voting booths across America. “In the next presidential election, the American people are going to have their say,” he said. In closing comments, the diversity of opinion was on full display. “American troops are in Iraq for good reasons,” said Daniel Kirch. “A democratic Iraq is a national interest for the U.S. Once Iraq is a functioning democracy, the people in [neighboring Arab] countries will demand the same liberties and freedoms for themselves. The United States will stay until Iraq is a secure country. Our exit plan is victory.” Amber Krosel was less optimistic. “Should we be there? Yes. Are we winning? No,” she said. Alicia Boemi summarized the thinking from the left. “We feel the war should not have happened at all,” she said. “Bush made it seem like a painless war that wouldn’t last long. It has turned into a tragedy.” 
Students in the Washington Semester in Journalism address one of the panels. |
