Middle East, Islam experts question preemptive strike
By Christina Cepero
News Writer
Christina Cepero
News Writer
Four panelists participated in the "A Strike Against Iraq: Impact on Islam and the Middle East" forum Wednesday at the Hesburgh Center for International Studies.
Panelist Vincent Cornell, director of the King Fahd Center for Islamic Studies and history professor at the University of Arkansas, said a war against Iraq couldn't currently be justified because there has been no actual proof of an immediate threat on the United States. Consequently, preemption cannot be used as a rationalization for war.
"We must first of all consider the moral dilemma of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq, and secondly, the possible reaction to such an invasion by the Muslim world," he said.
According to Cornell it is important that we do not whitewash the issue and that we see Saddam Hussein for who he is, an evil person who invaded Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in 1990 and has massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians.
"He is thoroughly disliked by the great majority of Iraq," said Cornell.
Cornell raised the question: "Is it morally permissible to use immoral means to remove an immoral force?"
Cornell said the Muslim world's reaction to a U.S. attack would depend on three factors: how many civilians are killed, how the Iraqi people respond, and the length of the attack.
In spite of the tape aired Tuesday purportedly linked to Bin Laden and his plans for another Al Qaeda attack, Cornell does not believe Al Qaeda would have the ability to plan a coordinated attack against American interests in the aftermath of a U.S. attack.
According to Cornell the U.S. was justified in the Persian Gulf War, for defending a sovereign country, Kuwait, that Iraq had invaded and whose citizens he killed. But in the case of this potential war against Iraq, there exists the problem of finding the real cause for war, Cornell said.
Alan Dowty, political science professor at Notre Dame, said Iraq has indicated it is in possession of weapons of mass destruction and is the only nation of modern times that has used these weapons extensively for four years in its war against Iran and in its massacre of 200,000 Kurds in its own country.
Rather than turning the issue of going to war into a pro- or anti-Bush argument, he urged the consideration of three propositions: Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the United Nations' authorization of action and whether it will enforce a United States' decision.
"A significant risk of real tragedy should in fact weapons of mass destruction be used is that the Arab-Israeli conflict will still be with us in more or less the same form," Dowty said, referring to the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Rashied Omar, coordinator of the Program in Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding at the Kroc Institute, said the Muslim world is characterized by the conflict between the partially religious and partially secular states of Saudi Arabia and the Islamists intending to found a theocracy based on the Islam state.
Omar raised two questions: "How has this extremist element of Islam influenced the world and how can Muslims living up to the ideal of moderation counteract Muslim extremists?"
The views of the Muslims depend on the socioeconomic context and the subjective role of religious leaders. The Koran can be used for any purpose at all depending on how its readers interpret the meaning of the text, he said.
James Sterba, philosophy professor at Notre Dame, said that both President Bush and extreme Islam as represented by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have expressed support for the war against Iraq.
"How could we be doing what Bin Laden wants us to do and still do good?" asked Sterba. People must be open to the possibility that the war would serve Bin Laden's ends and not America's, he said.
Sterba said that in some cases good ends justify bad means, such as lying to your friend to prevent her from harm. In this case, lowering the risk of weapons of mass destruction by invasion may be the only morally open alternative for containing Saddam Hussein.
The panel was the fourth in the series "Peace and War in 2003: Debating the Issues" sponsored by the Kroc Institute.
All News Stories for Thursday, February 13, 2003
