Philomathean Society discusses terrorism

On Thursday, students and professors came together to discuss terrorism, foreign relations and the political implications of the War on Terror.

Political Science professor Ian Lustick and History professor Arthur Waldron led a discussion in the Philomathean Society library on the war and the political repercussions of the death of Osama bin Laden. About 20 students sat around a table topped with refreshments to listen to the speakers provide their input on questions posed by students and discuss each other’s arguments.

Lustick and Waldron introduced the topic by arguing that the War on Terror was a distraction because it wasn’t as great of a threat as the effects of mobilizing the war and tying up resources.

“The war in Afghanistan is not about the war on terrorism anymore, but we are in a quagmire due to a lot of factors that have nothing to do with terrorism,” Lustick said. He argued that “the death of bin Laden has removed some of the barriers to looking at the problem in Afghanistan.”

Waldron chose to consider terrorism as a tactic and the motives that push terrorists to execute their missions. Lustick and Waldron then broadened the topic to the relationship between Pakistan and the United States as allies and the factors that are keeping the United States in Afghanistan. They then introduced a concrete plan of how policymakers should have approached Afghanistan. The professors, however, stressed the need for introspection on domestic policy and the labels that government uses to justify war such as ‘police action’ and ‘resolutions.’

A name that surfaced several times throughout the course of the discussion was ‘Awlaki,’ referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American citizen who was involved in organizing attacks on the United States and was killed by a drone, or unmanned aerial, attack at the end of last month. The panelists and students debated the constitutionality of the attack and whether drone attacks should be employed by the military.

The students were engaged throughout the discussion and agreed that the format of the two-person panel was effective.

College sophomore and prospective Philomathean Society member Harrison Falk “liked the kind of dynamic that [the professors] had.” Falk found it “much better having them together than having them talk singularly because they bounced ideas off each other and provided slightly different political outlooks.”

Saad Zaheer, a Physics and Astronomy graduate student and Philomathean Society member, disagreed.

“The format was good but it would have been more enlightening if they disagreed more,” he said.

The event’s organizers, College junior Amrit Malothra and College senior Laura Lee, were pleased with the turnout.

“We had decided to have it in the Society’s library in College Hall for the discussion format and it was just the right number because any more than that would have taken away from the discussion atmosphere,” Malothra said. “It was the perfect number so people who wanted to discuss could and people who wanted to observe also could.”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.