At the end of a long and grueling “Day of Dialogue,” the main issue of the day played itself out in the Monroe Lecture Center for a plenary session on the War in Iraq. The session was broadcast live on WRHU, so those that were in the listening area or on computers were able to listen to the event.
Titled the “War in Iraq: Where do we go from here?” it was a public forum supposed to focus on the future, but most of the dialogue was spent hashing out problems from the past and today.
On the panel were Carolyn Eisenberg, University Professor of History, Mackenzie Eaglen, Fellow from the Heritage Foundation, Leslie Cagan, a member of United for Peace and Justice and Rob Timmins, a member of the Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America. In addition, three veterans joined the panel for the question-and-answer session.
The panelists each delivered a short opening statement and then took questions from the moderators, before the audience received the opportunity to ask questions. Students, faculty and local members of the community all had the chance to ask the panel questions on policy, veterans affairs and other issues.
An attempt was made to take a question from a caller, but technical difficulties prevented it from happening.
Professor Eisenberg opened the discussion, which was moderated by two University Students, both veteran staffers of WRHU. “We all recognize the war is an immense human tragedy,” she said. “It is just a story filled with sorrow for everyone.”
Eaglen defended President Bush’s troop surge policy, though she did qualify her defense. “It was really a band-aid,” she said. “It is a way to buy time for the Iraqi government.”
When pressed on why the White House supports a government it no longer believes in, based on an internal administration memo leaked to the press, she said: “Maliki was elected; that’s who we have to deal with.”
Sharp disagreement and ideological clashes continued throughout the session. War critic Leslie Cagan thought that deception was involved in the sale of the war. “Nobody wanted us to go to war,” she said. “It never should have happened.”
“The problem must be solved as quickly as possible,” she added.
Veterans advocate Rob Timmins said that the soldiers were not conducting missions they were trained to do. “We were not trained to police the population,” he said.
A veteran on the panel agreed with this statement. “We don’t create peace, we create war,” he said.
He also said that both the people and the politicians were exploiting the troops. “We [troops] are used like a political chew toy,” he said.
All three Iraq war veterans echoed his sentiment. “Some of the things people talk about make me sick,” said one vet, who came home from his tour in Iraq to find himself homeless and begging the Veterans Administration for benefits he had earned. “Vets have to fight for the bare minimum of benefits at home.”
Fellow veteran Rob Timmins was not shocked about the vet’s problems. “This is a travesty,” he said. “Unfortunately, the outcry is not loud enough.”
The panelists did not come do a consensus on how to address Iraq’s future. Rather, they continued to assert their own talking points about the past to fit a view of the future. “Military power in and of itself cannot solve all the problems that needs to be solved,” Professor Eisenberg said.
Timmins stuck to requesting help for soldiers: “We need a new GI bill,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment