The American military will succeed in a war against Iraq whether or not the United States is supported internationally, said Bruce Meier, history and business teacher at Bakersfield College.

Meier was one of several BC faculty members interviewed about the probability and consequences of a war with Iraq.

“I believe that it is highly probable that we will enter the war,” said Meier. “And I believe when we enter the war, whether it is with a broad-based coalition or not, militarily we will be sucessful.”

But Meier noted that the United States may face new problems if it goes to war without international support.

“Without a broad-based coalition, there are several risks that we will encounter and pragmatically, we could be worse off as a result of our military victory,” he said.

Those risks involve a rise of the anti-American sentiment in some countries and the reinforcement of terrorist groups.

“There is a risk that anti-American extremists may overthrow the more moderate governments such as exists in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey,” said Meier. “And these governments, in order to survive the anti-American feelings of their citizens, will have to become more anti-American themselves.”

Meier said if the United States is to go to war, it must be a “wise war,” or a war that benefits Americans internationally. He noted that North Korea is a potentially higher risk.

Tom Moran, a faculty member of the American Sign Language Program, also mentioned the danger that North Korea represents.

“North Korea certainly constitutes more of a threat, and China in that regard. They do have nuclear weapons as I understand it and so they constitute a threat.”

He expressed his apprehension about India and Pakistan, two other countries who also possess nuclear weapons.

Moran said he does not understand why a war against Iraq is necesary.

“The purpose of a war is to defend one’s land and he (Saddam Hussein) is not attacking us. I have yet to see any direct ties between Iraq and organized terrorism.”

African-American history instructor Ishmael Kimbrough also is skeptical of the reasons for war, even though he said evidence supporting the United States might be found at a later time.

“The president and the administration have not made it clear that this war is necessary at this time,” he said.

He admits the potential danger Saddam Hussein represents, but suggests that other issues need more focus.

“That he (Saddam Hussein) is a bad guy, I agree with that. He eventually can be a danger, but I haven’t seen evidence that he is now, and there are other fish to fry.”

According to Kimbrough, protecting the United States from terrorism is more important than going to war.

“This seems out of order, and to me it masks a diversion from things that the administration can’t necessarily handle plainly here in America or in other countries,” he said.

For Helen Acosta, co-director of forensics and a speech instructor at BC, the possibility of the United States becoming a terrorist target is a major concern.

“It seems to me that if we want to avoid more terrorism directed at our country, it is definitely not the way to go,”she said.

In addition, she questions the real motivations behind this potential war.

“I conceive that Saddam is evil and a monster, but they’re a lot of evil people that run regimes all over the planet and we are not attacking them,” she said.

“The only reason we are going there is because they have something we want.”