President Bush’s recent decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq was the topic of a spirited debate between members of the University’s Debate and Speech team and community members on Wednesday night.
The event, held on campus and sponsored by Concerned Faculty for Peace and Justice, featured debaters Emily McLain and Jennifer McBride arguing in favor of the troop increase, with Rachel Bristol and Amy Bullock arguing in opposition.
“The United States of America has broken Iraq and needs to fix it,” McLain said to the gathered students and community members. She was aware of public skepticism surrounding the proposed troop increase. “One of the reasons people are skeptical of President Bush’s plan is because the Bush administration hasn’t really been honest with us about exactly how bad it is over in Iraq right now.”
Despite lingering doubts over the plan, however, there is a need for additional troops to deter fighting between Shiite and Sunni militias in and around Baghdad, McLain said. During the past year, she said, the fighting has escalated into a maelstrom of sectarian brutality, citing the more than 34,000 Iraqi civilians who have died in 2006 and recent acts of terror including last February’s Shi’a al-Askari Mosque bombing in Samarra.
“We have to deal with the world as it is today,” teammate McBride proclaimed. “Not as we want it to be, but how it is.”
In the context of a larger strategy, she said, the troop increase may not be enough to secure the peace in Iraq. The main problem in securing Baghdad, she said, was the lack of manpower to both clear neighborhoods of violent elements and hold them to ensure that the rebel militias do not return after U.S. forces have left. She said the proposed increase will “effectively double” the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, making sustained suppression of sectarian violence a more viable mission.
Rachel Bristol, however, was not convinced.
“A gradual pullout in Iraq rather than prolonged U.S. involvement is key to attaining the ultimate goal of a stable, self-sustaining country,” she said.
Citing the recent report by the Iraq Study Group she recommended a gradual withdrawal of troops from the region.
“Iraq is like watching a bull in a china shop shattering everything around it,” Amy Bullock said. The proposed troop increases, she continued, is equivalent to sending “20,000 more bulls into the china shop.”
Bristol and Bullock also pointed out that in order to supply the region with additional troops, many soldiers’ departure times from Iraq will be delayed by three months. They said the military is already stretched dangerously thin, and that for the government to go back on soldiers’ tour of duty contracts amounts to lying to the men and women of the armed forces.
Additionally, they said that despite providing security to the region, U.S. forces are hindering the transition to an independent Iraq.
“Continued U.S. presence is keeping rivaling factions from resolving their differences,” Bullock said. Additionally, she said the sustained level of forces, which upon completion of the surge will exceed 140,000, reinforce a level of dependency on the United States, both in the Iraq military and government.
Following the debate, professor emeritus of biology and long-time activist Frank Stahl moderated an open forum in which members of the audience were allowed to ask questions or voice their opinions. Many chose the latter, voicing their displeasure over the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and the Middle East.
Stahl said “American militarism combined with America’s foreign policy seems like a profound illness, which may mark the end of civilization as we know it,” but added that fair, open discussions of the issues were vital to ensuring a healthy democracy and the best interests of the American people.