Iraq War Panel Discussion Attended by Representative Ehlers

Last night at the Women’s City Club in Grand Rapids, Democracy for America’s Kent County chapter held a panel discussion titled “Searching for a Constructive Response to our Entanglement in Iraq.” The panel featured two West Michigan area professors and a former military chaplain, all of who gave twenty-minute talks on the conflict in Iraq followed by a question and answer period.

Surprisingly, Grand Rapids area congressional representative Vern Ehlers who has recently stated his unwillingness to listen to protestors, attended the event. While it is nice to see Ehlers out in public engaging the current situation in Iraq, the fact that Ehlers chose to attend this particular event–and not any of the other numerous teach-ins that took place before and after the start of the war–is somewhat troublesome for those who have been pressuring Ehlers to end the occupation of Iraq as the three panelists basically echoed Ehlers’ position that the United States has a “moral obligation” to the Iraqi people and that the United States must stay in the country to attempt to mitigate the effects of what is for the most part now a civil war. To be fair, Democracy for America cannot be blamed for Ehlers’ attendance, but it was unfortunate that all three panelists represented what was at best a “centrist” position on the situation. There was no voice for an immediate withdrawal on the panel, nor for that matters were there any voices calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Ehlers will likely see the panel as bolstering his position, he has recently claimed that he will only listen to “facts” when making his decisions about the war and now he has three area “experts” on record essentially supporting his position on the conflict.

The first speaker on the panel was Calvin College history professor Douglas Howard who spoke on how the terms used in the public discussion about the Middle East in part shape the debate. Howard chose to examine three terms–”the Middle East,” “Islam,” and “the West”–as examples of how the terms used can create the bounds of discourse on a topic. He traced the origins of “the Middle East” as a term to 1902 but explained that it did not come into widespread usage until the 1940s. He argued that the term’s connotations in popular thinking–violence, turbulence, and trouble–are more important than the physical geography and that the term’s mental geography is not particular important for understanding the role of the region at this time in history. With regard to “Islam,” Howard argued that in popular discourse “Islam” is seen as something that “we” must “correct.” Building on this interpretation, Howard explained that Islam is seen as something that has not changed since the Koran despite centuries of evolution in the religion. Finally, Howard asserted that “the West” is a term that was created by the United States to highlight the idea that there was a historical turning point–perhaps the Reformation–when “the West” took a different path than the rest of the world. Rather than seeing the current conflict as being rooted in a confrontation between “the West” and the rest of the world, Howard reminded the audience that the problems encountered today in the region are a result of events in the recent past.

The next speaker was Robert Stewart-Ingersoll who is a political science professor at Grand Valley State University. Stewart-Ingersoll began his talk by asserting that the conflict in Iraq is one of the most important issues for the United States in the world, while reminding the audience that the cost in human lives for the Iraqis have been far higher than they have for the United States. He further asserted that the war was “utterly mismanaged” regarding what would happen after the fall of Saddam Hussein and that now the United States is stuck in a role of providing security for the country. Stewart-Ingersoll suggested that perhaps a massive influx of troops–predicated on what appears to be the success of the “surge” in some areas–could have some influence, but he was quick to point out that the American people would not support such a solution. He then asserted that while the invasion was “one of the most ill-conceived foreign policies” in US history and that any talk of leaving the country is misguided and would bring a more dangerous conflict in the future.

Stewart-Ingersoll explained that the conflict in Iraq must be considered within a regional context and explained that the civil war currently taking part in the country has the potential to spread across the region, as the various identity and power dynamics that are playing out in Iraq could also play out in neighboring regions. He asserted that Iraq is “ripe for a conflict that exceeds the level thus far” and that without security Iraq would escalate into a full civil war. “Spill-over effects” from such a civil war could include the radicalization of populations in the region, motivation for terrorists, and a refugee crisis. He further asserted that if the United States left there would be a humanitarian crisis that would be entirely the United States’ fault and that it would ruin the global economy. In the question answer period, he said “victory in Iraq would be a stable government that could provide security for different groups” and protection from the outside, further arguing that it Iraq is “not going to be a functioning, mature democracy.” Stewart-Ingersoll asserted that most of the Iraqis want the United States out of the country, but argued that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions would die if the United States pursued a policy of rapid withdrawal.

The final panelist was Chaplain Herman Keizer, a retired United States Army Colonel who served in the military and the State Department for much of his career. Keizer began by echoing Professor Stewart-Ingersoll’s argument that the United States has a moral responsibility to do something about the conflict in Iraq, while arguing that tactically withdrawing troops makes them more vulnerable to attacks. Kezier discussed two potential solutions that have been put “on the table” about the Iraq War, the Iraq Study Group report and the Bush administration’s strategy. Keizer explained the Iraq Study Group as a bi-partisan plan that asserted that the situation was “grave and deteriorating” while calling for a variety of steps including a decrease in the United States military’s role, training Iraqi forces, withdrawing most troops by the first quarter of 2008 but maintaining a “rapid reaction force,” setting up a system for sharing oil revenues, and increasing incentives for Iraq to reach a “political” settlement. He also described the Bush administration’s strategy, which was initially to ignore the “Sunni Arab Insurgency” and for the military to operate in forward operating areas while the insurgency took hold in strongholds around the country. This insurgency was in some ways infiltrated by al-Qaeda who used the United States’ presence as a rallying cry. Since the “surge” in January of this year, the policy changed with the United States putting its troops in the cities to establish security with the assumption that the political process would make progress if violence in the country were lowered. Keizer also talked about the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s analysis of the conflict and argued that there must be a process through which all potential political solutions–including portioning Iraq–are on the table. In the question and answer period, Kezier declared that any talk in the upcoming debate over funding the war about timetables or withdrawal is simply a distraction from the real discussion of the United States’ moral obligation to Iraq.

The full audio of the panel discussion is online. Media Mouse also encourages people to seek out perspectives calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. A lecture from retired special operations soldier Stan Goff who spoke in Grand Rapids in 2006, is also available online in audio and video.

Related Posts:

1. Video: Protest Targets Representative Ehlers’ Support of the Iraq War
2. Congressman Vern Ehlers Votes against Measure Opposing Escalation of Iraq War
3. Representative Ehlers Admits “Tens of Thousands” of Civilians Killed in Iraq
4. Email Action Targets Representative Ehlers’ Support of Iraq War
5. Call-In Day to Tell Representative Ehlers to Vote against the War in Iraq

Tags: antiwar, grand rapids, iraq, michigan, vern ehlers