NIU scholars of world political relations disagree on the validity of the U.S. attack on Iraq, but say Americans have to face the reality that the line in the sand has been crossed.

Robert Albritton, an associate professor of political science, said the United States strategy has been a good one so far, but nighttime details were too sketchy to truly weigh the situation.

“We don’t really know what’s happened,” Albritton said. “The inferences that it’s been successful are based on wishful thinking.”

However, Albritton said the reported targets were highly predictable and essential—especially because he believes an air strike is the “most plausible” strategy Bush could follow.

Albritton said he thinks the war will be fairly short if Wednesday’s air attack was able to weaken Iraqi missile capabilities. “If that angle was successful, with fairly light casualties on our side, it should be fairly short.”

Ideally, “several days of air attacks” will be good, he said.

“We ought to do everything possible with the air forces before ground troops are committed,” he said. With a strong air strike, “the Iraqi troops would be demoralized into surrender.”

The Wednesday night attack was no surprise to Albritton, who said he began anticipating it when he heard the rainy weather in Saudi Arabia had cleared. Also, he said, he knew it would be a nighttime initiative.

Carl Parrini, professor of American diplomatic history, said the failed chances of a diplomatic resolution are complicated.

First, Parrini said, Saddam Hussein would not pull out from Kuwait, while at the same time, the United States and the United Nations were making good on the UN resolution demanding Iraqi withdrawal. Second, he said, there was an effort to maintain some sort of balance in the Middle East.

Parrini said he was surprised by the quick move to attack after the Jan. 15 deadline. “I thought we’d wait about a week,” he said. “I was surprised in that sense.”

And although Parrini said he thinks the conflict will be short-lived, he said he thinks sanctions could have worked. However, Parrini said he thinks President Bush rejected them because they weren’t working fast enough.

Lawrence Finkelstein, professor of national security policy said he thought it would have been more diplomatic to begin with a token show of force.

“I would rather the president had done a demonstration and knocked out something like a phone plant,” Finkelstein said, “and let the old man (Hussein) think about it a bit.”

Political science instructor Jim Scott was “dismayed” over the lack of patience shown by the U.S. and UN forces and the U.S. first strike.

“I don’t believe diplomacy was given a fair try,” Scott said. He believed the president has been committed to using force since the Nov. 8 decision to order a massive increase in troops overseas.

Scott, however, was encouraged by initial reports claiming that all the U.S. and Saudi Arabian planes engaged in the Baghdad bombing were able to return. He thought the international coalition arrayed against Iraq would hold firm if the military action continued as successfully.

However, a bloody war would strengthen public opposition to the military actions, Scott said. Also, an attack on Israel from Iraq may cause the coalition to “fray around the edges,” he said.

Although Scott said he thinks Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was unforgivable, he fears that the forces intend to destroy Iraq’s infrastructure.

“If you believe U.S. and other forces are only going to liberate Kuwait, then I think you have a surprise in the future,” he said.