 "Photo: miraglivolo, lisa")
Two Boston College professors debated the war on terror in in an event sponsored by the Undergraduate Government on Monday night. Marc Landy and Seth Jacobs, of the political science and history departments, respectively, presented attendees with opposing viewpoints on U.S. policies throughout the war on terror.
Jacobs argued against many Bush administration practices, especially the reasons given for the pre-emptive war to topple Saddam Hussein.
Landy argued in favor of the pre-emptive doctrine.
"Iraq has become a magnet for radical terrorism around the world," said Jacobs on the consequences of invading Iraq. The war on terror, he said, "has disturbed the region and poisoned Arab and Muslim minds for decades to come."
Landy saw involvement in Iraq as beneficial to the safety and security of U.S. interests. "To win this war is to take it to the enemy and defeat them," he said. "The essential truth is that we fight in Baghdad so we do not have to fight in Boston."
The debate drifted from Iraq to several other areas of contention, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in other rogue states around the globe, and even the ability of a state to fight a concentrated war on terror.
"The whole concept of a 'war on terror' is meaningless ... terror is a tactic," said Jacobs, who viewed the Afghan invasion as necessary and just in its mission to find and disable al-Qaida operatives, but the professor had trouble connecting the need to topple Saddam to preventing terrorism.
Landy countered by reminding the audience in his rebuttal that Iraq continuously flouted U.N. demands for weapons inspectors, and he continued to espouse the belief that terrorist cells were in Iraq.
"One of the reasons for fighting Iraq is that we could," said Landy.
While expressing a wish to halt the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East and the world, the professor made the argument that Iraq was indeed a troubled and dangerous state, and that "there are things that must be done to keep the world safe from terror."
When both speakers were asked their opinions on the chances for a free and peaceful Iraq by audience members, the professors were pessimistic.
Landy said that success in Iraq is, "simply a stable regime that respects human rights," and Jacobs noted that, "the talk about sweeping democracy is dangerous talk."
The upcoming election exhibited some of the most overtly partisan opinions of the night.
Jacobs, a Kerry supporter, said when asked how he would vote, "I always vote for the adult in every election."
Both professors were well-received by an audience made up primarily of students, but which included several faculty members and other interested persons. The popularity of both of the professors brought an overflow crowd to the debate in the Higgins lecture hall.
Landy has a PhD in government from Harvard University. His books include Seeking the Center: Politics and Policymaking at the New Century and The New Politics of Public Policy. He is also the faculty chair of the Irish Institute.
Jacobs has his PhD from Northwestern University. His area of expertise is American diplomacy and foreign policy after World War II, and his books include America's Miracle Man in Vietnam: Religion, Race, and U.S. Intervention in Southeast Asia, 1950-1957, and The 'Diem Experiment': The United States and Vietnam, 1954-1963. Both are to be published within the year.
Be the first to comment on this article!