Faculty members from the University at Buffalo are available for members of the media covering the political, economic and cultural implications of a U.S. war with Iraq.
Summarized, below, is their analyses and commentary.
U.S. ATTACK WOULD BREAK FROM ITS LONG-STANDING FOREIGN POLICY OF NOT INITIATING HOSTILE ACTION
U.S. military action against Iraq would represent a break from the long-standing U.S. philosophy of not initiating hostile action, according to a University at Buffalo political science professor who studies war and conflict.
"Most democracies don't initiate conflict," says Michelle Benson, assistant professor of political science at UB. " In this case, however, President Bush likely feels that the ends justify the means. War may be the only way to oust Saddam from power and improve the lives of millions of Iraqi people who are suffering under his rule."
Benson's research shows that the most effective way to prevent war, and reduce the hostile actions of nations, is to encourage hostile nations to participate in world affairs. Given the scope and nature of U.S.-Iraqi relations over the past 10 years, Benson says it's not surprising that the U.S. perceives Iraq to be hostile or an unconstructive member of the international community.
"On the other hand, countries that have had regular relations with Iraq-such as Russia and France-do not perceive Iraq as being as hostile, which is probably one reason these countries do not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq," Benson says.
Benson thinks Saddam doesn't want a war, but she doubts he will take sufficient action to prevent one. Nor does she think its likely the U.S. will back down from attacking Iraq, even if the U.S. does not receive U.N. approval.
"There's an old adage that says 'once your sword is drawn, you must use it.' If the U.S. does not attack many believe that it risks losing its credibility for future actions," she says.
BUSH'S 'PREEMPTIVE ATTACK' POLICY AGAINST IRAQ NOT A BIG SHIFT IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, SAYS EXPERT ON DETERRENCE
President Bush's "preemptive strike" policy toward Iraq is mostly rhetoric and does not represent a major shift in U.S. foreign policy, says an expert on deterrence and international relations at the University at Buffalo.
"Bush made a big deal about a policy change from deterrence to preemptive action, but in practice it doesn't really change all that much from what U.S. policy has been in the past," says Frank C. Zagare, UB professor and chair of political science. "It's not much different from what the U.S. has done in Grenada, Guatemala, Panama and covertly in Chile and other countries."
According to Zagare, U.S. policy of containment with Iraq had been effective, which raises questions about the Bush administration's motives for attacking now. He says a decision to go to war with Iraq, without U.N. Security Council approval, could isolate the U.S. from world affairs, not unlike the way Germany was isolated by the world community because of its hostile actions prior to World War I.
"The clumsy way the Bush administration has handled the diplomatic aspects of going to war is alienating our allies and their domestic populations," Zagare says. "It may be very difficult to reestablish these relations after the war is over and it could have the effect of galvanizing an anti-American coalition, which in the long-run would be very detrimental to U.S. interests."
STOCK MARKET WILL RALLY DURING FIRST DAYS OF WAR, SAYS EXPERT ON INVESTOR BEHAVIOR
War with Iraq likely will boost the stock market during the first few days of fighting, as investors express relief that the days of waiting and wondering are over, according to an expert on investor behavior from the University at Buffalo.
"When the actual war hostilities begin, some of the uncertainty that caused a decline in the market will be resolved and stocks should begin to rally," says Kenneth A. Kim, assistant professor of finance and managerial economics in the UB School of Management.
After this initial boost, the market will swing with news about the war, Kim says.
"If the war goes well and quickly, the market will look forward to upcoming earnings and economic news," he adds. "The rise or fall of the market will depend on those expectations. If the war goes poorly, the market will then turn back down."
Overall, Kim predicts war will have a negative impact on the economy. Americans will stay home where they feel safe, and will not be spending in the shopping malls. Government war spending will not stimulate the economy because it will not produce new jobs, and rising oil prices will negatively affect the airline, trucking and tourism industries, Kim says.
Moreover, the march to war is pushing aside efforts to improve corporate governance and boost investor confidence, Kim says.
"When investors return from their focus on war, they again will take a hard look at corporate America," he adds. "The stock market and corporate America have not regained their trust. The longer it takes to restore investor confidence, the harder it will be to do so."
WAR WITH IRAQ WOULD FAN ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT AND DISTRACT U.S. FROM PRESSING ISSUES ELSEWHERE
According to Paul D. Senese, assistant professor of political science at UB, a war with Iraq will only fan anti-American sentiments in the Arab world, revive the "A" word -- arrogance -- and rouse more hatred of Washington among Arab Muslims.
"If the U.S. effectively eliminated Saddam Hussein there would be similar problems that would arise in his place," cautions Senese, an expert on international security and American foreign policy. "And it would raise the question of whether the U.S. would attack other leaders or countries when it doesn't like what's going on in the world."
Moreover, Sense says a war with Iraq would be "very inconsistent" with the U.S. war on terrorism and would distract the U.S. from more pressing international issues.
"In the long run, America's relationship with China is much more important than anything going on in the Middle East," says Senese, "We've crippled the al-Qaeda and improved homeland defense to the point where one could make the argument that the U.S. is more secure than it was before."
"China is the most likely challenger to the U.S. in all ways-economically, politically, militaristically," he adds.
WAR ON IRAQ, WITHOUT U.N. RESOLUTION, WOULD BE ILLEGAL
According to Lee A. Albert, UB professor of law, it is illegal for the United States to declare war on Iraq without a U.N. resolution. Albert is one of several hundred law professors from throughout the United States who signed a petition objecting to a war with Iraq.
In part, the petition states that "a US war against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America's treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law."
U.S. OCCUPATION OF JAPAN OFFERS LESSONS FOR IRAQ
If the U.S. is successful in dethroning Saddam Hussein, a lengthy and difficult period of occupancy would be required to democratize Iraq, says Thomas W. Burkman, director of UB's Asian Studies Program.
Burkman points to the Allied occupation of Japan after World War II as an example of how difficult regime change in Iraq could be.
"Forcing changes in Japan required the extended presence of thousands of Allied troops and civilians, the work of thousands more Japanese functionaries and millions of dollars." Burkman notes.
"Democratization requires more than taking out a dictator," Burkman adds. "It takes ideological consensus, high idealism, a stomach for social engineering and the patience to persist through an extended period of habituation -- all backed by military force."
ARCHAEOLOGIST SAYS WAR WITH IRAQ COULD DESTROY ANCIENT TREASURES IN THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION
Samuel M. Paley, archaeologist and professor of classics at the University at Buffalo, warns that a war with Iraq could destroy at least some of Iraq's ancient archaeological treasures.
In fact, archaeologists say the country is virtually one large archaeological site that holds the remains of many ancient settlements, some well known from historical and biblical references and some yet to be explored.
"If there is such a war," says Paley, "there is a great likelihood that when the confrontation ends, we will find that at least some of these ancient districts will have been looted, and damaged more than they were after the 1991 Gulf War."
"The political decisions resulting from the 1991 war have produced some unfortunate ends for scores of Iraq's ancient archaeological sites, Paley says.
Among the causes were the, severe economic sanctions against Iraq imposed. "After the war, Iraqi authorities, short of needed resources, were unable to protect many of the country's museums and archaeological sites from looting and theft by desperate and unemployed Iraqis," Paley says.
BUSH'S LEADERSHIP LEGACY WILL BE SHAPED BY A WAR WITH IRAQ
President Bush's leadership during a war with Iraq will shape public perception of his charisma says James R. Meindl, a University at Buffalo School of Management professor who studies attributes of leadership and charisma.
"A person's ability to appear decisive, bold and in control in a crisis is a major component of what makes him or her appear to be charismatic, and a good leader," says Meindl.
According to Meindl, there's a "honeymoon period" for leaders during a crisis, but leaders who fail to adapt or respond to changing circumstances/situations after the crisis usually become less charismatic and less effective in the leadership.
RSS