As America prepares for a war with Iraq, the UB community is gauging the political risks involved with President George W. Bush's plans for engagement.
While opinions differed among political science professors and students, all sides agreed on one point: The outcome of this war will have a profound impact on the future of the United States.
"Bush is putting his presidency on the line," said Mark Hurwitz, an assistant professor of political science. "If it goes poorly, he'll have trouble not just with his own party, but with the opposition as well."
Hurwitz said the political consequences for Bush do not hinge on whether America wins the war, which he said could be easily accomplished. Rather, Hurwitz said problems could arise for Bush if Iraq has difficulty rebuilding.
"That's really the wild card right now," Hurwitz said. "Nobody knows how this is going to turn out. If we have some support in rebuilding Iraq, the prospects are much more positive.
"But, if it's just us, that can cause a lot of problems," he said.
James Campbell, a professor of political science and academic advisor to the Republican National Party, said America already has a great deal of international support as it prepares to head into battle. He noted that almost 24 countries have expressed support for the United States' looming military conflict with Iraq.
"It is a multilateral engagement," Campbell said.
According to Campbell, the coalition in favor of military action against Iraq believes "the risk of sitting back when everyone has acknowledged that Saddam Hussein has these weapons of mass destruction ... is much greater than the risk of engagement."
Hurwitz said discussions on whether America should have waited for more international support are irrelevant at this point, since Bush has made it clear he intends on going to war.
"I would have preferred to get more support," Hurwitz said. "But it's going to happen, so that's academic at this point."
Campbell said those opposed to war with Iraq are critical of the United States' failure to seek a follow-up U.N. Security Council resolution to Resolution 1441 and said that proceeding with the war without the United Nations' support will strain American relations with the U.N. Security Council.
However, he blames France, not America, for the tension between the United Nations and America.
"It's done damage to the United Nations," Campbell said. "Any future administration that's concerned about international security would have to think long and hard before tying itself up in the United Nations when it's a possibility that the French will simply sabotage efforts to productive diplomacy."
John Titus, a freshman civil engineering major, said he disagreed with Campbell's views and that he supports the French diplomats who oppose war.
"They are doing the right thing," said Titus.
In reference to evidence of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction, Titus said, "Nobody wants war, and they've found nothing about Saddam yet."
"We should listen to the U.N., because otherwise every other country can do what we are doing now," he added.
Campbell said Bush could face political peril at home if the war was unsuccessful, but a victorious turnout could have the reverse effect.
"If the allied forces go into Iraq and discover these weapons of mass destruction the administration has claimed all along has been there, I think the actions will have been justified," said Campbell.
"I think Bush will come out of this as a political leader that attempted to follow diplomacy as far as he could, but in the end when diplomacy failed, he did what he thought was in the best interest of the nation."
Eric Son, a senior economics major, said he does not feel Bush put enough time into diplomatic efforts.
"I think the U.S. is just being pushy," Son said. "The U.S. should have been more patient and tried to work things out with the international community."
Bush has given Hussein and his sons until 8 p.m. tonight to leave Iraq and avoid a war with the United States.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
