In contrast to the leftist inclination of the typical audience
at anti-war events, many in attendance at Thursday’s teach-in
voiced their impassioned support for continued military efforts in
the Middle East to overthrow “oppressive” regimes.
Several students, citing ethnic ties to Iran, advocated military
intervention to liberate and democratize the oppressed citizens of
their homeland.
But the three UCLA history professors who spoke at the event
expressed skepticism about the altruistic and humanitarian aims of
the United States, and they questioned the local support for such
intervention.
Instead of echoing the cliches of the anti-war movement, the
speakers portrayed the conflict as the initial stage in the planned
reconstruction of the Middle East by the Bush administration.
“This is the plan of the guys in charge, and it needs to
be resisted,” Professor Nikki Keddie said.
Members of the audience, though, expressed beliefs that the
benevolent influence of the U.S. military in other parts of the
region could benefit the people living under un-democratic regimes
and contribute to public safety.
Countering the idea of intervention, Keddie described a marked
difference between Iranians in the United States and those in
Iran.
Popular support in Iran for humanitarian U.S. military action is
virtually non-existent, Keddie said.
“I think countries have a right to not be invaded,”
she said.
Though images of exuberant Iraqis defacing images of their
dictator and welcoming U.S. troops have been commonplace in the
media recently, in his segment of the program, Professor Gabriel
Piterberg claimed this reaction is not representative of typical
Iraqi sentiment.
Piterberg offered some insight into the reasons for a lack of
Iraqi support of U.S. troops, citing the arbitrary national
boundaries of Iraq as an important factor in complicating the
national identity of the country’s citizens.
In Piterberg’s view, the complexity of the Iraqis’
ethnic, religious, social and national loyalties make their
reaction to any kind of intervention unpredictable.
“Things are not as simple as they seem,” he
said.
Further combating the appeal for extended
“humanitarian” military action in the region, Piterberg
cited the United States’ dismal record in past efforts to
implement democracy abroad. He specifically mentioned U.S. support
of malevolent dictators in Latin America.
Professor Emeritus Joyce Appleby focused her address on the
dangers the war has imposed on the state of democracy in the United
States, and cautioned against the further development of the
“imperial presidency.”
Appleby expressed concern over what she called the “steady
augmentation of executive power,” which she feels has been
demonstrated by the absence of congressional approval of the
current war.
Even more dangerous, in her view, is the possibility that the
reconstruction of Iraq could be carried out without congressional
ratification of a potential treaty.
“The power of Congress to check executive power is
essential to our democracy,” Appleby said.