IOP Panelists Evaluate War

Two long weeks after experts gathered there to offer their predictions on the impending war, the Kennedy School of Government (KSG) played host to another discussion on the Iraq conflict, with a panel of military, political and human rights scholars offering a generally positive assessment of the war’s progress.

U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, Army General John Reppert, Director of the KSG’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Sarah Sewall, and KSG Lecturer in Public Policy John White spoke before an audience of 150, most of whom were graduate students.

As troops closed to within 25 miles of Baghdad today, the panel discussed the ups and downs of the war, focusing not so much on the final outcome, but on the means to that end.

One focal point of the discussion was whether the military’s attempts to minimize civilian casualties have been sufficient.

Panelists largely agreed that the military should be given credit on this count, saying that any hope for zero casualties is an impossible dream.

Sewall—who studies civilian casualties in context of war—lauded the U.S. military for its efforts to avoid collateral damage.

“The U.S. is unparalleled in its efforts to prevent civilian casualties.” Sewall said.

She also said that despite Americans’ differing views toward the war, they have high expectations—making mistakes costly.

“High expectations leave no room for error. Everything is viewed as intentional.” Sewall said.

The panel’s moderator Graham Allison, director of the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, asked the group whether the inability of British and American forces to secure key cities on the route to Baghdad indicates that the war may drag longer than expected.

Responding in what he called “academic terms,” Reppert said that Baghdad was key to U.S. war strategy in a way that other cities were not.

“Baghdad is a mandatory course and the other cities are electives—whether they’re taken or not, [the war] ends the same way.” Reppert said.

Questions from the audience included inquiries about the effect attacks on Iraq will have on the larger war on terrorism.

But panelists said that the concerns were of a temporary nature.

“The war on terrorism is a long run,” said Oelstrom, who directs KSG’s national security program. “Iraq is more of a short term piece of a much, much longer run of war on terrorism.”

Allison said the panel was designed to offer multiple viewpoints on the war.

“The purpose of this panel is to provide a candid, analytic and heartfelt discussion on this fifteenth day of war on Iraq.” Allison said.

But Seamus Mckiernan ’06 said that he would have preferred that the group of panelists had included some who were opposed to the current U.S. military action in Iraq.

“It’s always good to discuss war, but I would like to see a policy advisor from the other side of war.” Mckiernan said. “There were two generals—if all the weight is on the U.S. defense, you’re not going to get the full picture. War is confusing enough already.”