Five distinguished community members agreed, for the most part, that the United States must take greater precaution concerning preemptive military strikes and work more closely with the international community.
Former N.M. Govs. Jerry Apodaca and Dave Cargo; Roger Hagengruber, director of the Office for Policy, Security and Technology and a UNM professor; Paul Stokes, a weapons expert; and William Morgan Stewart, foreign affairs columnist for The Santa Fe New Mexican expressed their views during the panel discussion titled "The People Speak: America Debates Its Role in the World."
Patricia McFate, a member of the Senior Advisory Panel of the Department of Defense, moderated the discussion at the UNM Continuing Education Center Monday night.
A taped speech by Gov. Bill Richardson began the evening.
"New Mexicans are by no means indifferent to the world," Richardson said. "More and more Americans are paying attention to foreign relations. The prevention of terrorism against the United States is in no way a partisan issue."
The panel focused on questions regarding whether the United States should focus more on confronting non-military issues such as poverty, world population and pollution and if the current administration was overstepping its bounds by using preemptive military force on nations allegedly seeking nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
"It might be easy for the U.S. to continue our current policy," Hagengruber said. "Unfortunately, the possibility of an event occurring and the emergence of complex groups with the possible connection to rogue states has created a threat that the United States has never had to face."
Cargo said the most critical aspect when considering a preemptive strike is intelligence.
"The problem with a preemptive strike is that it is very easy to get into a country, the problem is getting out," Cargo said.
Stokes said the United States must look more closely at international law and decide if the use of preemptive force is justifiable.
"It seems to me that the threat must be imminent and the evidence must be overwhelming," Stokes said. "The problem is there is a lot that is subject to interpretation. Given the open-ended policy we currently have, we are leaving too much to subjectiveness."
Apodaca questioned the motive of the Iraq war.
"I'm not really sure of the motive why we went to Iraq," Apodaca said. "What has created this environment where our president can make unilateral decisions that can affect us over years and years?"
Stewart said multilateral decision-making would be a better way to approach the use of preemptive force. He said the United States can now act militarily on its own and is the country that has the power and money to do so.
"We might be able to win a war in Iraq unilaterally, but we cannot win a war on terrorism unilaterally," Stewart said. "That has to be done multilaterally."
Junior Landon Dyksterhouse said he thought the attacks on the current administration's policy only caused problems.
"I think it is appalling that so many people are taking shots at President Bush publicly," Dyksterhouse. "We're supposed to be unified as a nation and it seems like we're divided now."
Junior Sarah New said the discussion was informative and brought up many good points.
"I feel that with foreign affairs, we need to be more informed," New said. "'The People Speak' is a good forum to help inform and involve citizens with the issues that affect us all."
Stewart agreed that forums such as the panel discussion are useful tools for the public.
"I think they are very useful in making a better educated population," he said. "It doesn't mean everyone has to agree though."
