|
||||
  
 
 |
Response to terrorists will define U.S. role in new century, panel says By
Anna Brunson A roundtable discussion yesterday on the United States' new "War on Terrorism" drew an audience of more than 200, with dozens crowding the front to ask questions after the formal program had ended. "There is a difference between outrage and analysis," said political science Department Head Randy Simmons, moderator. "In this meeting, we are trying to provide thoughtful analysis." Professors Robert Wendzel, Jeannie Johnson, Veronica Ward and Larry Boothe, members of USU's political science department, spent the hour discussing the nature of terrorism, what a new war could mean for the United States, and how it should be fought. Each participant got a few minutes to present thoughts and then the time was opened for students' questions. The faculty offered their opinions based on expertiese ranging from the U.S. War College to CIA studies into Islamic terrorism to CIA Afghan covert operations. The forum was centered on a remark made by George W. Bush in his address to the public after the attacks. "Our war on terrorism begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will end when every terrorist of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." Boothe said the terrorist attacks couldn't have been prevented, "and we probably can't stop them from happening again. Any technology has a dark side if there are dark people that want to use it." The way in which the United States responds to these attacks will ultimately define its role in the 21st century, said Wendzel. Although the entire panel supported retaliatory action, they all discussed the difficult decisions that need to be made to succeed. Each was quick to point out potential problems that could arise. Boothe believes that the nature of the al Qaeda and Afghanistan's terrain will make this a war that the United States is ill-prepared to fight. "We are in a different kind of war," he says. "It's going to be a long, hard struggle. It's going to be a battle of will. "If we're lucky and get all of [the terrorists], we'll get peace. If we miss a few, you can expect to see more casualties on our side," Boothe said "War is a serious business. People die," said Wendzel, who focused on the weight of entering a war without a clearly defined victory or endpoint. "Just because we don't like someone, we'd better not underestimate the enemy." The panel also discussed the new coalition that President Bush is trying to form. "We ought to build as wide a coalition as possible, but let's not be naïve," Wendzel said. "Those countries that join will want something in return." Ward believes it is crucial that a coalition be based on a common purpose, because ultimatums, like the ones Bush has given, ensure weak and shallow alliances. "You need to keep the number of new enemies you create as small as possible," she said. Johnson discussed the internal complications of forming a coalition."If all our actors out there have a pet organization they want to get rid of, how will we decide which ones to target?" Although most of the discussion had a cautious, somber tone, Boothe said that victory in this war is possible. "If we uphold our values and liberties, we will prevail."
|
Archived Months:
January
1999 January
2000 January
2001 |
||