Monday night, a debate in the Memorial Chapel on the war in Iraq pitted political scientists Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Michael Parenti against one another for nearly two hours.
They debated the motivation and judgment that led to the decision to enter Iraq, as well as the handling of the war over the past two years since it begun.
Parenti, an author and Pulitzer Prize nominee, has taken an unwaveringly liberal, and generally negative, stance on US foreign policy over the past 25 years. Hitchens, an author and journalist, is supportive of U.S. foreign policy. He supported the U.S. invasion in Iraq, and is a strong advocate of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
The talk, called, “Iraq and the Future of US Foreign Policy,” was sponsored by WesPeace, the United Student Labor Action Coalition, the Muslim Students Association, the Office of the President, and the Sociology and Government Departments.
Hitchens and Parenti presented prepared arguments as well as several responses to one other. A panel of professors and students also posed questions to each speaker.
Hitchens opened his statements by proposing what he believes to be the four conditions in which a state loses its sovereignty.
“Repeated aggressions against neighboring states, violations of the Geneva convention, collusion with international gangsters or harboring terrorists, or violations of the non-proliferation treaty or otherwise promiscuous behavior with weapons of mass destruction,” Hitchens said.
He argued that the Iraqi government had clearly violated several of these stipulations by invading Kuwait and by harboring terrorists that were involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Hitchens went on to say that there was nothing “fake, contrived, or confected” about the Bush administration’s decision to go to war.
“[The situation in Iraq] had spiraled and spiraled, and needed to be dealt with,” he said.
Parenti quickly responded by saying that the entire war in Iraq has, in fact, been predicated on lies.
“Not simply errors or misrepresentations,” Parenti said. “But flat-out lies.”
He argued that President Bush’s October 2002 declaration that Iraq was gathering weapons of mass destruction, as well as his 2003 State of the Union address, employed falsified information that Saddam Hussein was seeking to procure uranium from Nigeria.
Parenti also faulted former Secretary of State Colin Powell for his presentation of dubious evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before the United Nations Security Council, in the month before U.S. troops entered Iraq.
Hitchens energetically refuted Parenti’s assertion that the WMD-based case for war in Iraq was largely a façade for other intentions. He cited the many findings related to Hussein’s weapons ambitions, such as information provided by his head chemical weapons specialist that hinted at aims to acquire WMDs.
While Parenti attacked everything from the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraqi war to its management of taxpayers’ money, the crux of his argument became evident as the debate neared its conclusion.
“It is a supremacist’s view on which U.S. foreign policy is predicated,” Parenti said.
He illustrated the U.S. government’s support for Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime in Iraq until Hussein pursued economic nationalism.
Parenti further argued that the United States’ post-Cold War foreign policy objective is anti-development and pro-dependency.
“The goal of U.S. policy is to establish a lock on material resources on any country or regime who wishes to use its own labor, resources, and land for its own use and benefit,” Parenti said.