With the United States-led war on Iraq having officially begun, the following experts from around the country can assist in your coverage of various aspects of that war as events unfold.
BIO-TERRORISM
John Palisano, professor of biology, the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn. Palisano teaches a course on "Bio-terrorism" and just told his students in that class that the method of detection (for biological and chemical weapons) is going to expand exponentially. "There's money there to spend on what is perceived as a major issue now," says Palisano, who was recently quoted in an Associated Press story on how plants are now being grown to detect the presence of chemical and biological weapons. He's planning to write a book on bio-terrorism from the perspective like his course -- making it general enough so anyone with any education can understand it, but also writing it to be used in classrooms. "It will contain such things as information that the government warning us to go out and buy duct tape and plastic to seal our windows in preparation for a bio-terrorism attack is a crock. But then again, it's all just propaganda anyway," he says.
GOALS OF THE WAR
Dr. Mark Elrod, associate professor of political science at Harding University in Searcy, Ark. The goals of the war seem to be removing Saddam and his regime from power," according to Elrod. "The assumption seems to be that once a despot is removed, the population feels an overwhelming desire to democratize. My guess is that the Bush Administration is using Eastern Europe as a model," says Elrod. He believes it is also assumed that a pro-Western democracy would gladly give up weapons of mass destruction in exchange for U.S. security guarantees and economic assistance. "I believe that the Bush administration believes that 'victory' will contain at least five elements. One, ridding the Middle East of Saddam's regime with a minimal loss of American and Iraqi lives; two, stabilizing post-war Iraq and appointing or electing a pro-American regime; three, creating a minimal amount of damage to the U.S. economy; four, fighting and winning the war in a war that does not create any more enemies than necessary in the Arab world; and five, getting re-elected in 2004,"
Dr. Jack Holmes, professor and chair of political science at Hope College in Holland, Mich. The Bush Administration has been relatively consistent, according to Holmes, with the goal being to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. He believes that it is a somewhat logical outgrowth that the goal has expanded beyond this. "Saddam Hussein is a master of deceit. Perhaps he is such a master that he must go," says Holmes. "My suspicion is that the administration was open to being convinced that the weapons were gone early in the process. However, as more countries seemed unwilling to take firm action, it seemed as if the administration became less willing to let Saddam stay." Holmes feels victory will take place once the weapons are gone, or Hussein is out of power. "However, victory is best defined by those who are leading the countries involved."
HUSSEIN'S RESOLVE
Paul Heise, professor of economics at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa. While Paul's teaching is in economics, he has international relations experience with his work for the Office of U.S. Trade Representatives between 1977-81, where he provided trade adjustment assistance to the President's Office as a liaison with the labor movement and foreign investment in the United States. Heise sees every probable scenario following an attack to overthrow Saddam Hussein including his use of weapons of mass destruction. He believes the important question now is "What will Saddam do?" "We have to think the unthinkable," he says. Heise forecasts that by attacking Iraq with the trumpeted purpose of ousting Hussein's regime and killing him, "he has no alternative but to defend himself to the death." That includes using his weapons of mass destruction, possibly giving those weapons to al-Qaida for future use in the continental United States and leading to more deaths. "We will get no sympathy from the rest of the world when those weapons go off here," says Heise. He believes this is the same situation as the Cold War and its "mutually assured destruction" (MAD).
IMPACT ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD
Robert Hardaway, professor of law, University of Denver. Hardaway is the author of 10 books on law and public policy. He has often served as political commentator for the national news media and has appeared to TV shows such as CNN's "Burden of Proof." He can speak on the international political scene as the war unfolds. "As a result of French machinations and the worldwide demonstrations, the United States was placed in an untenable situation. If it proceeded to disarm Iraq in the face of a French and German veto, it would pay a high political price for enforcing UN resolution 1441. If it did nothing, then Iraq would be emboldened to declare final victory, its weapons program would continue unabated and the UN would be a high risk for suffering the same dismal fate of the League of Nations," says Hardaway.
Dr. Jonathan Mendilow, professor of political science at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J. Author of the book, Ideology, Party Change, and Electoral Campaigns in Israel, 1965-2001 (State University of New York Press) is the former press officer for the city of Jerusalem, and has taught a course at Rider on terrorism for the past four years. He also teaches about Iraq and its influence in the Middle East. Mendilow believes a U.S. victory in the Iraqi War will create a "window of opportunity" for the formation of a possible Palestinian state after the war. With Yasser Arafat appointing his longtime deputy Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian prime minister Wednesday -- offering a new leader who has previously negotiated with the Israelis -- there would be a greater climate for negotiations. He believes the U.S. may be put in a position to negotiate for peace in this conflict in order to placate Arab nations and offer a peaceful opportunity to mind fences with European nations, who have largely been opposed to the American military action. However, he doesn't see the Bush Administration seizing this opportunity, since it appears "not open to idea of diplomacy at all." He calls the current war a product of "the greatest diplomatic fiasco in the history of America in the 20th Century."
Bradley Watson, associate professor of political science at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa.Watson believes this is a war designed to teach lessons far beyond Iraq -- teaching the leaders of the radicalized parts of the Islamic world that the costs of threatening America, never mind actually attacking America, are simply too high to bear. "It is a war designed also to shake things up in the Middle East and lay the groundwork for open, democratic societies throughout the region. President Bush genuinely believes that a democratic revolution of some sort if not only possible, but necessary to stabilize and protect not only the region, but America itself," says Watson. While some have argued that attacking the Iraqi regime will increase threats to America, he believes the Bush Administration has calculated that the costs of doing nothing are greater than the costs of action. "September 11 is striking evidence for this proposition," he says. "The administration would like to see a re-invigorated international solidarity against what it sees as the barbarians at the gates. If this solidarity is won at the expense of old, ineffective institutions like the U.N, then so be it. A few sparrows must fall."
IMPACT ON BUSINESS/THE STOCK MARKET
Dr. Katarina Keller, assistant professor of economics, Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. A native of Sweden, Keller's teaching and research interests include economic growth, development economics, international economics, and income distribution. She teaches a course in international political economy. She believe the economic impact of war on the U.S. economy, as well as other participating nations, would be positive -- like it was for the U.S. economy following participation in World War II. However, "the positive effect might be less nowadays," due to such things as increased uncertainty about air travel. She sees the immediate effect on Iraq's economy being obviously negative, but that could improve dramatically if a short war does not cause too much destruction on the country's infrastructure and the economic sanctions are lifted. She sees the reconstruction of Iraq providing business opportunities for companies, "but will be costly if the bill is footed by the (U.S.) government and taxpayers and would be more beneficial to the U.S. if some of this can be paid for by Iraqi oil." Keller also points out that the reason the French have opposed all proposals of military action against Iraq is because of that country's own business interests in the country -- even its nuclear program. Russia is also owed money by Iraq, which is why it has also opposed the U.S. action.
Dr. Anthony Liuzzo, director of the business division and professor of business and economics at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. The impact of a war on the economy has varied, both with the conflict and the timing, according to Liuzzo. "Thus, despite what some experts have indicated, there are no general rules that one can follow by examining this issue historically," he says. "In the current situation, the economy is a bit shaky, retail sales are mediocre, the stock market is volatile and depressed, and consumer confidence is questionable. A war will certainly not reverse these indicators. But much depends on what happens." Liuzzo predicts a quick victory over Iraq, with Hussein ousted and minimal U.S. casualties, accompanied by few or no acts of terrorism, can actually serve to stimulate the economy. "However, if we find ourselves in a protracted encounter, with many casualties, or suffer serious losses from terrorism, the economy is bound to get worse before it gets better." Despite this, he believes the U.S. economy remains strong, with solid underpinnings, and, although there may be some rocky times in the short-term, the long-term outlook provides cause for optimism"
Maury Randall, professor and chair of finance, Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J. Randall has followed the stock market and general economic issues and has provided media expertise on related topics in the past. One of his latest papers, titled "Share Repurchases: The Impact on Stock Valuation," appeared in an edition of the professional journal, Financial Practice and Education this year. Randall believes if oil supplies remain stable or the war is quick, then there will be a positive impact on the market. But if the fields are sabotaged, or the war lengthens, then the opposite will be true.
Dr. William Ward, Warehime Professor of Business Administration, Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. Ward has been a media expert on issues involving small business and entrepreneurship --both nationally and internationally. He organized and ran an international conference on small business in Washington, D.C., several years ago, and is a past president of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. He also was on the staffs of United States Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Ward believes that war always has varied economic effects, since "a lot of war is about things that happen that can not be anticipated, so we are left to try and fathom the unfathomable sometimes." He forecasts the aerospace and military hardware firms will benefit, and also believes there will be "big bucks contracts" at stake in the reconstruction of places like Afghanistan or Iraq. He also believes medical pharmaceutical manufacturers and all of the supplies needed there will also benefit, "particularly if -- as advertised by Iraq -- certain kinds of biological and/or chemical weapons will be widely employed." The only business certainly, according to Ward, is that "the economic effect will probably not be uniform on the whole business sector -- other than if the stock market goes up 20 percent or so over time, as it did after the first Gulf War."
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS
Robert M. Jarvis, professor of law at Nova Southeastern University Law Center in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. Jarvis reports that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies raises a myriad international law questions. "The most fundamental is whether an attack is lawful, given that Iraq has not declared war on the United States, no imminent threat appears to confront the United States, and the United Nations Security Council has not authorized the use of force," he says. Now that the attack is launched, the United States will have to conform to the dictates of international law in its battlefield operations, according to Jarvis. Specifically, this will mean observing the legal rights of enemy troops and civilians and their property. Once the fighting stops, he sees two main issues: what legal system will be imposed on Iraq, and by whom and on what schedule; and to what extent will the actions of the United States in making war open its leaders and military commanders to the possibility of future prosecution. That prosecution could come before the new International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction the United States has refused to recognize; an ad hoc international tribunal, such as those that have been convened in the past for Rwanda and Yugoslavia; or the Belgian courts, now that that country's highest appeals court has held, in a case involving Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that foreign leaders can be tried for war crimes having nothing to do with Belgium once they leave office.
MIDDLE EAST ECONOMY
Dr. Rock-Antoine Mehanna, assistant professor of economics, Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa. Mehanna is also a trade consultant to The World Bank for Middle East economic issues, who has done several studies in the past year for the World Bank in the region. He has done previous counter terrorismresearch in such places as Afghanistan and Pakistan, in addition to Iraq -- studying how a model involvinggreater economic welfare would affect terrorism in that region. He examined how income disparities, Islamic ideologies, and public education were effecting terrorist actions in countries like these, creating an index of terrorist incidents over a year in the process. According to one of his studies "Intra-Middle East Trade: An Empirical Assessment," trade in the region is significantly low compared to the rest of the world -- largely because countries there are faced with several trade impediments. Some of Mehanna's other recent papers that research on Iraq include "Corruption and Openness: The Case of the Middle East," "Trade, Islam, and Politics: A Vector Autoregressive Model," "Economic Integration in the Middle East: Evidence from Gravity Model," and "Bilateral Trade and Islamic Sects."
MILITARY ETHICS
Dr. Paul Hinlicky, the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College in Salem, Va. In making a military attack against Iraq, Jordan-Trexler believes the Bush Administration is considering a dangerous new principle in a dangerous new world. "The fault of the Bush Administration is not that it is seeking regime change in Iraq and is willing to act militarily to achieve that. Returning to battle because of broken Gulf War truce obligations does not so much entail a 'preemptive war' on a potential enemy as finishing the defeat of a real one," he says. "The administration's moral case for acting decisively now to disarm and transform Saddam's Iraq seems strong when we apply the just war doctrine." He observes that the real fault of the present administration is its unwillingness so far to count the cost and summon the American people to a duty in what will undoubtedly be a painful, long-term and very expensive engagement. "These daunting tasks will be the real price of waging a just war. The easy part will be the military victory. The next twenty years will be far more demanding."
John Kunich, associate professor of law at Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I. Kunich teaches national security law and points out that it is wrong to suppose that international law or, more specifically, the law of armed conflict prohibits warfare. "It does not; it places some limits on the circumstances and tactics of war. It does not require that a nation wait to be directly attacked before defending itself," he says. "Under established law, a preemptive strike can be appropriate. The law does not demand that we wait until Saddam Hussein launches a massive chemical, biological, or nuclear strike against U.S. forces or our allies in the Middle East." Indeed, one of the primary tenets of the law of armed conflict is the minimization of civilian casualties and collateral damage, according to Kunich. "If we waited until Saddam's regime became even deadlier, and until it actually unleashed its weapons of mass destruction on people outside Iraq, we would be guaranteeing the polar opposite result," he says. "We would ensure that many more innocent civilians would be killed or injured, and that much more damage to non-military targets would result. That would be absurd, an abrogation of our duty to our citizens and our allies, and a grotesque misinterpretation of the law's dictates."
Jeff Whitman, associate professor of philosophy and head of the department at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. Whitman is a former U.S. Army major who taught "just war" theory at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and was a member of the Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics. He produced a paper titled "The Means and Ends of War," that was published in one of his ethics professional journals, and an op-ed titled "The Justifications for War." Whitman believes that the Bush Administration falls short in its claims of being a "just war" against Iraq in its requirement for just cause. "Just cause has traditionally been understood as a war waged in self-defense or to inflict punishment after an injury has been received. Wars of anticipation or security are expressly forbidden by the just war tradition," says Whitman. As a necessary condition for a just war, this requirement of just cause appears not to be met in the Bush Administration's rationale for war, according to Whitman. "If the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense were to become the norm for the international community, think of the countless wars that might be justified by one party or another -- Pakistan attacking India, North Korea attacking the United States," he says.
PRESIDENTIAL MISCALCULATIONS
Samuel R. Williamson, president emeritus and a professor of history of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn. Williamson is author of "Miscalculation and International Crises" A Short Essay on the Obvious, or Was It So Obvious?," which was part of a Report to the President-Elect 2000 -- In Harm's Way: Intervention and Prevention by the Center for the Study of the Presidency in Washington, D.C. He believes the Bush Administration's threat of war against Iraq may result in the latest miscalculation by a Presidential Administration. "In the history of international politics in this country, this represents one of the most unusual events -- a major power such as the United States wanting to attack a significantly weaker country such as Iraq as a preventative action," said Williamson, who previously was an assistant professor of history at The United States Military Academy at West Point. Williamson reports that every President and Presidential Administration over the past 50 years has made miscalculations that have caused international crisis. Among the eight miscalculations he cites in the essay made by previous Administrations, was the handling of Iraq in both 1981 and 1990. Williamson emphasizes that the greatest miscalculation of the first Gulf War was "the failure to continue the war until Hussein was forced from power." If the current war there totally has to do with security, then Williamson questions what the exit strategy is if the U.S. wins. He reports that miscalculations will always be a feature of national security policy because of the complexity of the issues, the differing perspectives of the security bureaucracy, the personalities of the key actors including the President, and a frequent inclination to go with solutions that pose the least momentary domestic political risk.
RECONSTRUCTION
Andrea Lopez, assistant professor of political science, coordinator of the international studies major, Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. Lopez's academic research has studied the civil war of the world, including the conflict in Afghanistan -- the first target of America's War on Terrorism. She authored a paper titled "Guerrilla War, Counterinsurgency, and Legitimacy: The Case of Afghanistan, 1978-92," which was presented at the 2002 Southern Political Science Association Meeting, last November. While that paper focused on Afghanistan's civil war from 1978-1992, it uses those events as a case study of what can occur when populations erupt in civil war, and when foreign countries intervene to help solve their problems. She reports that Iraq has previously seen its own civil wars. According to Lopez, the United States is still facing a long-term reconstruction project in war-torn Afghanistan following its 2001 military rout of the Taliban from power, and she believes it faces a similar plight in a post-Saddam Iraq -- and other fronts in its War on Terrorism.
Dr. Susan Sommers, associate professor of history at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa. Sommers believes it is very difficult to build democracy in a place where there's no precedent. "Democracy is a Western European invention. It's taken a lot of painstaking development over many years," she says. "It takes a tremendous amount of effort and determination to build it in a place where it's not even part of the vocabulary." She reports that the Middle East is still dealing with the lingering effects of the Age of New Imperialism in the 19th century and the mandate system that was enforced under the League of Nations. "These countries are still dealing with issues raised by colonialism and its Western interference. And that is one of the things complicating the situation, and driving the antagonism and suspicion between the Islamic world and the West," says Sommers. "American is ignoring this at its peril. We can't fool ourselves into thinking that if we remove Saddam Hussein, Iraqis will all start acting like they're from Illinois."
TERRORISM AND WARFARE
Ken Osborne, dean of Roger Williams University's Metropolitan College in Providence, R.I., and a professor of military history. Osborne's taught courses on terrorism, insurgent warfare and the history of war. A Vietnam veteran, he is comfortable speaking on most present-day military topics from army deployments to weapons systems.
U.S. MILITARY MIGHT
Dr. Howard Warshawsky, professor of public affairs at Roanoke College in Salem, Va. To place this war in a broader context, Warshawsky sees it as an example of how the clearly dominant global power has chosen to articulate its influence, i.e., unilateralism. While seeking multilateral support and legitimacy, the Bush Administration made clear that it not seeking the advice of others when it comes to defining its goals or asserting its powers, nor will it be held hostage by the recalcitrance of some. "This has placed strains on our traditional 'alliances,' but it may be the intention of Bush II to do so," he says. "The constant message about the need of the U.N. to maintain its credibility is a reminder that multilateralism cannot be credible without U.S. participation. The tension between the US and France/Germany may also be a reminder that the 'world images' or 'self images' of these states have profoundly changed over the past 50 years -- and especially since the end of the Could War." Warshawsky believes the U.S. may truly be the only state today that has both global interests and power -- observing that European states really have regional perspectives and roles regardless of rhetoric or pretensions. The same can be argued for Russia and China. He also finds it is interesting that al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are trying to manipulate this situation for their own ends. "Both Bush and Saddam are 'enemies' from their perspective; provoking war which topples Saddam, causing instability in the Middle East, and encouraging anti-US sentiment among the masses there is all helpful to Islamists."
RSS