Titans Clash Over Iraq
By Kirsten Thomas, 10.27.05
With the death toll reaching to 2,000 soldiers in Iraq, Regent University’s Clash of the Titians Debate came at a perfect time. Four politicians took the stage on Friday, October 21, 2005 to debate the role of the United States in Iraq.
Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Wesley Clark and Paul Begala found themselves discussing opposing sides of the Bush strategy to a sold out crowd. Both sides agreed that the war in Iraq has to be won, but each has a different method.
Attendees found the debate a perfect outlet for a sensitive topic.
“The subject [debate topic] didn’t just bring dry debate, but conversation about peoples values with desire to solve the problem for the best of the world,” Ivan Lyashenko, 25, said.
North said Iraq has to be seen in the larger context; the war on terror. He proposed a solution to diminish the incentive for jihad martyrs, or suicide bombers.
“Give them something to live for instead of something to die for,” North Said. He credited the current increase of Iraqi children going to school as one step to this solution.
Yet, Clark argued that the current administration needs to develop a development strategy.
“The most constructive thing the starting port for winning the war on terror is to win it ideologically,” Clark said.
He said that Iraq’s neighbors are part of the problem in the war on terror and that any proposed strategy needs to be all inclusive.
Gingrich argued that the war is necessary.
"We would be in a far more dangerous world if Saddam Hussein was in charge instead of in prison,” Gingrich said. “That we have made mistakes in the process, that we have much to learn but that in fact we have almost no choice expect to learn from those mistakes and to continue to move.”
He suggested that the United States is engaged in a long war with Islam and estimates it may take more than 50 years. He foresees that democracy would not be enough in the war on terror. Emphasizing that free people need to be willing to do whatever it takes to have a future.
Another debater, Begala, said that Iraq was not an immanent threat to America. He believed that the motives were noble in going after Iraq.
“They [Bush Administration] did believe as the speaker said [Gingrich] that the only way to ultimately take on jihadist terrorists was to take over a big country in the middle east kick there butts [and] set up a democracy,” He said “That was not what they told you, they did not tell you that. They told you Iraq was a treat.”
Begala suggested that because of the lack of candor and credibility by the administration many people believe that they were mislead. He foresees the administration having a tough job gaining support if the war on terror moves to Iran or to other parts of the world.
Although the U.S. presence in Iraq may turn out to be a long-term effort, Lt. Col. Scott Leith who recently returned from Iraq focused on what the U.S. has already done for the Iraqi people.
“Schools, water purification, building of police and security,” Leith said. “That was worth the effort.”
Tell A Friend
