 "Photo: Sweeney, Clare")
Since it began in March of 2003, the war in Iraq has been a widely debated and controversial issue that has polarized the political arena. After the United States invaded Iraq and failed to find the weapons of mass destruction, some Americans felt as if they had been lied to while others maintained that only in hindsight did the invasion seem unnecessary.
While America may still debate whether it should have entered Iraq, the fact remains that the war is a reality and its resolution has come to the forefront. In Tuesday's student debate, "Iraq War Debate: Can We Win in Iraq?," both arguments in support of and against remaining in Iraq were discussed.
The event, sponsored by the Boston College Republicans, demonstrated the existing divisions in opinion even within party lines. Brian Cunningham, A&S '08, represented BC Students for Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman and presidential hopeful from Texas, while Michael Reer, A&S '10, represented the College Republicans National Security Committee. Reer supported the continued presence of American troops in Iraq until the nation is stable as a democracy while Cunningham advocated the immediate end of the war and return of the troops.
Cunningham said that the United States presence in Iraq is not constitutionally supported and will ultimately be ineffective. He believed the reasons supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq was initially flawed while also insisting that philosophically, the United States cannot win the war or achieve its goal of establishing democracy.
"George W. Bush's policy has been to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun," Cunningham said. "We need to create a community where [the Iraqi people] can foster their own ideas not force our ideas upon them."
Moreover, Cunningham said that the war in Iraq is simply not economically viable. Although the estimated cost of the war varies, according to the National Priorities Project, an estimated $456 billion have already been spent on the war as of Sept. 30, contributing to the $9.1 trillion national deficit. As the cost of war rises each day, some Americans wonder if it is worth the price, especially since it cannot be determined when the goal of establishing lasting peace and democracy will be accomplished, if at all.
"Our military intervention in the Middle East has done nothing but cost us lives and money," Cunningham said. "It is nothing but a black hole of debt and death."
The American population appears to be in agreement with Cunningham. A poll conducted on Sept. 8 by CBS and The New York Times found that more than two-thirds of Americans supported decreasing the presence of American troops in Iraq, while nearly one-third of Americans supported removing all troops from Iraq immediately.
Additionally, discontent with American foreign policy in Iraq is no longer limited to the Democratic Party, as demonstrated by Tuesday's debate. Even with support of the war at an all-time low, however, there is no general consensus as to what course of action the United States should take in order to end the war.
While ultimately both sides want the war to end, Reer said it would be against both U.S. and Iraqi interests to remove U.S. troops before Iraq is stable. He argued that the experience of the American government and of American policy was necessary in order to rebuild Iraq, while emphasizing that the Iraqi people needed American troops to keep them safe and build trust between both the soldiers and Iraqi citizens, but also among the citizens themselves.
"[If we leave now] the world community will lose faith in our cause and our determination," Reer said. "We can only leave our friends behind so many times before we have no friends left."
Reer also argued that the United States is winning the war in Iraq and has already accomplished many of its objectives, including the fighting of foreign terrorists on Iraqi soil.
"[Fighting terrorists in the Middle East] is certainly a more attractive alternative to fighting them in the streets or air over New York," Reer said.
The war in Iraq, however, involves more than Bush's war on terror and includes establishing democracy in Iraq. While many believe that stability in Iraq ultimately is not attainable in the near future, or at least without continued U.S. military presence, Reer said he was confident that it can be achieved and that we should remain in Iraq until this stability was actualized.
"I have faith in the men and women overseas," Reer said. "I have faith in their cause, and as long as they have faith in their cause, I will support them."
Reer said he believed that the war in Iraq may not be an important issue in the upcoming presidential election, especially if some of the troops are already on their way home. The current division within the Republican Party, however, was represented within the debate itself.
Cunningham said he does not think the American public will elect a leader who will keep the United States at war, even if Iraq does not become a peaceful and functioning democracy.
"We don't have the opportunity to go back in time but we do have the opportunity to prevent further mistakes," Cunningham said.
It seems likely that the increasing lack of popular support of the war could impact the outcome of next year's election.
"[The war in Iraq] is the defining issue of our time, of recent elections, and will continue to define the 2008 presidential elections," Cunningham said.
Be the first to comment on this article!