LEWISTON – Economic, political and ethical aspects of the U.S. war with Iraq were explored Wednesday night in a public forum at Bates College.

Four members of the Bates College faculty, including political science professor James Richter, led the discussion.

The question of oil was clearly important, Richter said. But “I don’t think it was the key reason for this war,” he said. “I think there are lots of ways to get access to oil. I’m not sure you can draw a straight line from oil to war.”

Iraq was on the agenda early in the George W. Bush administration, Richter said, “but not high on the agenda. That changed after Sept. 11.”

Richter said weapons of mass destruction were not the main reason for going to war, but the “most persuasive” reason.

Religion professor Thomas Tracy talked about the ethical context of war. He outlined philosophical arguments in the “just war” theory, emphasizing three criteria: a “just cause” such as self-defense or defense of a third party that seeks assistance; use of force for humanitarian reasons; and confidence that a good outcome is attainable and the outcome sought is worth having.

Conclusions based on those criteria may mean one of three things: the war in Iraq is immoral, the criteria have been misapplied, or the criteria no longer apply. Nevertheless, he said he concludes that the war in Iraq does not meet the test of a “just war.”

Tracy told the audience the war does not seem to have been a “last resort.”

He said that WMD inspections were enough “to disrupt the ability of the regime to produce and deploy those weapons. That disruptive effect is enough to deter, and if you can deter, you needn’t go to war.”

Assistant political science professor slaug sgeirsdttir, who is a native of Iceland, talked about European views of the war.

“No one has really defined what victory looks like in Iraq, and unless you can do that, we can’t have an exit strategy,” she said. “I think that highlights a lot of the issues that are problematic with this war.”

Withdrawal of U.S. troops at this time is not widely supported because it would lead to chaos in the region, sgeirsdttir said.

“On the other hand, if the U.S. doesn’t want to go it alone, it has to mend relationships, especially with the Europeans,” she said.

Matthew Nelson, another assistant professor of political science, drew upon his observations when he was in Pakistan at the time of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

He said Muslims are not in agreement for support or opposition to the war. The great majority of Muslims abhor the twisted use of Islamic values by terrorists, he said.

Questions to the panel came from dozens of audience members and the discussion went on for well over an hour.

While Bush administration policies came in for criticism by the panelists and several questioners, the tone of the evening’s discussion remained thoughtful and evenhanded.

Concern was voiced about the effect of military-industrial interests and about bringing private security forces into Iraq.

A member of the audience called those forces “mercenaries” and questioned their value.

A member of the audience said Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq “with an iron fist” may turn out to be the only thing that works.

sgeirsdttir responded that Marshall Josef Tito of Yugoslavia once said the same thing about his country, “and that disintegrated into a disaster.”