AHA War Resolution

by Cliopatria

The Iraq War Resolution being presented to the AHA members states that the following Bush administration actions are “inextricably linked to the war in which the United States is presently engaged in Iraq”:

• excluding well-recognized foreign scholars;
• condemning as “revisionism” the search for truth about pre-war intelligence;
• re-classifying previously unclassified government documents; • suspending in certain cases the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus and substituting indefinite administrative detention without specified criminal charges or access to a court of law;
• using interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib, Bagram, and other locations incompatible with respect for the dignity of all persons required by a civilized society;

Is that true? Are these things inextricably linked to this war or could a different administration have waged a similar war without them?

Yes, I know that this is an anti-war resolution in intent that’s been shaped to get support. Still, for it to be adopted by the membership of a scholarly organization, it ought to be logical at face value. Is it?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Oscar Chamberlain - 1/9/2007

It seems to me that the anti war resolution and the speech zone resolution have something in common: both are terribly worded compromises. As several people noted, the speech zone resolution could be read as suggesting there be no place on campus where free speech is allwed. As Alan noted, the War resolution could actually be read as supporting a whole range of actions, including military action elsewhere.

Yes, we know what they really mean. Or do we?

Jonathan Dresner - 1/9/2007

My third favorite speech of the evening made precisely that point (James Sheehan was my favorite, followed by Tim Burke's quixotic attempt to fix that very clause), and was without a doubt the best laugh line of the night.

With regard to the preamble/whereas section that Oscar brought up, what I think it boils down to is that the condemnation of the war itself was the real centerpiece of the resolution, and the stuff about document access and professionalism was a clever attempt to hid the fact that the resolution is, at its core, a-professional.

Alan Allport - 1/8/2007

Surely the real problem with the resolution is its injunction to historians to to do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion. That's a demand so open to contradictory interpretations as to be utterly meaningless. One could, for example, argue that the swiftest way to bring the Iraq war to an end would be to invade neighboring Iran and Syria. I'm not saying that I personally would argue this, but I don't see that it conflicts with the language of the resolution.

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 1/8/2007

A different administration *could have* waged this "war" without these things. But, you have to pass a resolution with the administration you've got. :)

Manan Ahmed - 1/8/2007

Right. That as a result of the war, we have travel bans on foreign scholars, torture/gitmo, enemy-combatants, and curtailing of public access to documents.

Sounds about chicken and egg to me, though. Most policies were shaped between the 2001-2003 period, so I doubt that Iraq war contributed directly to anything on that list, directly.

Ralph E. Luker - 1/8/2007

Oscar, My sense is that the resolution means to say that those things _have been_ inextricably linked to this administration's prosecution of the war. It doesn't pronounce on whether those things would have inevitably linked to such a war under a different administration. That's not been the issue that's aroused opposition to this resolution.