With the recent Iraqi elections and the U.S. occupation of Iraq still volatile international issues, a panel discussion was held to assess future and current U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Political Science professor Brendan O'Leary led and began the discussion.
According to O'Leary, people are wrong to assume there is strong Iraqi resistance against the United States.
For example, in Kurdistan, "citizens looked forward to free and fair elections," he said, dismissing the notion that Muslims are "incapable" of being democratic. O'Leary noted his first-hand experience with the issue, as he spent much time in Iraq, especially the province of Kurdistan.
Many of O'Leary's remarks dealt with Kurdistan and how much independence or clout it should have in the future of Iraqi politics.
"Kurdistan is going to have pivotality," he said.
Regional Science and Political Science professor Stephen Gale does not believe the conflict in Iraq can be resolved politically.
He said that the basic question at hand is "whether peace is something you can create or something that is found through struggle."
Gale proposed that, given U.S. dependence on Iraqi oil, instability in Iraq could cause a severe reduction in the standard of living of American citizens.
Ian Lustick, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, was the most vocal of the panelists.
He expressed his complete opposition to the Iraq war, as well as the media coverage -- including current coverage of elections -- which he claimed was untrustworthy. Lustick also warned that "no government in Iraq set up under our auspices can survive if we're not there."
Anthropology professor Brian Spooner focused on the issue of integration of Iranians in Iraq. He noticed that Iranians do not have much of a say in Iraqi politics despite the significant degree to which affairs intermingle between the two nations.
Professor Michael Sullivan argued that learning why Americans occupied Iraq will help indicate America's future commitment to the country.
"The reason that we went into Iraq is oil; the reason that we're going to stay in Iraq is oil," he said
During the question-and-answer session, the focus shifted to issues outside of Iraq.
To the surprise of some, all panelists believed that the U.S. will not attack Iran. And when questioned, all also denied that there would be a draft if an invasion were to occur.
College senior and PennForum member Felix Yelin said the panel was informative but that it "wasn't very balanced" and "slanted to the left." He noticed that the panelists did not address the key question of what the U.S. should do from this point on.
PennForum is a student-run organization that plans public debates and panel discussions open to the Penn community.
