INTRODUCTION

Trish Oberweis, Guest Editor

Current events worldwide with regard to Saddam Hussein and relations between the U.S. and Iraq draw strong opinions from all or most who are paying attention. While many Americans appear to support a U.S. attack on Iraq, many others of the world’s citizens appear not to support such an invasion. Some Americans, of course, oppose such an attack, and some non-Americans support it. Generally, two opposite opinion camps have emerged worldwide, and most of us fall close to one or the other of those poles. The debate rages, even as the U.S. and Iraq move ever closer to a military confrontation, with or without the support of the United Nations and the international community.

Democratic participation demands both a willingness to learn both sides of a debate-- such as the question of the best way to resolve the present dispute between these two nations-- and a willingness to discuss opposing points of view with an open mind and a level of professionalism that is often challenging to achieve and maintain. The purpose of this special edition of the Edwardsville Journal of Sociology is to present arguments both in favor and opposed to a U.S. led invasion of Iraq as offered by professors on campus and to allow a forum for response and dialogue related to the perspectives offered within.

While the planned Table of Contents included two articles supporting military action and two articles opposing, one author who had been outspoken about the need for balance regarding the issue failed to submit his arguments at the last minute, prohibiting an opportunity for another person to draft an article with the same ideology. For that reason alone, the journal offers two articles opposing military action and only one article favoring it, regrettably.

The journal offers arguments by John Farley, Chair of the Sociology Department, opposing military action on moral, geopolitical, national security and military grounds. Similarly, Sociology professor Linda Markowitz offers arguments opposing military action by examining the rhetoric of war and the implications for world citizens embedded within. In contrast, Criminal Justice professor Matthew Petrocelli argues in favor of military action, using the text of international treaties to show that such an attack would be legal according to the text of existing resolutions, and responding to a few arguments in opposition to military action. I would like to thank each contributor for taking the time to prepare arguments for this forum.

Additional information that may contribute to a well-educated perspective on the issue can be found from mainstream media sources as well as those slanted to the right and to the left, and from more balanced sources, such as Open Democracy, which can be visited at http://www.plato.2020media.co.uk/conflicts/index.jsp, and especially targets the issue with the debate entitled “Iraq: War or Not?” The texts of international agreements and treaties are available online at the United Nations website, which can be visited at www.un.org. The relevant treaties, or security counsel resolutions, can be viewed by visiting http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm, and selecting the appropriate year. The Gulf War ended in 1991, and several relevant resolutions can be found in that year. In 2002, the Security Counsel again passed resolutions that relate to the situation. I encourage all readers to view all sources of news and information, to weigh the various arguments carefully and to arrive at a personal opinion that is well-researched.

As indicated above, becoming educated about current events is the first step in democratic participation. Public discourse is the other. To that end, readers interested in such discourse are invited to respond to the authors in this special edition. Ask questions, enter rebuttals or provide your feedback by visiting http://events.siue.edu/talk/

Trish Oberweis is assistant professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Her email address is toberwe@siue.edu