by Michael Houlahan, Oct 22, 1998

Dramatic footage of the tumultuous February town meeting at Ohio State University (OSU) was broadcast worldwide by CNN. Overseas and domestic audiences were treated to ninety noisy minutes during which the three top Clinton foreign affairs advisers, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, were frequently drowned out by hecklers as they attempted to justify possible U.S.-led air strikes against Iraq. With renewed Iraqi intransigence and recent terrorist attacks sponsored and carried out by Arab radicals, it may be useful to examine U.S. Government errors, which led to the Columbus debacle.

Clearly the OSU ambush surprised and rattled CNN's moderators as well as President Clinton's foreign policy professionals, who clearly expected a tame audience at this grassroots meeting intended to launch an administration public relations campaign justifying military action. Instead of projecting an image of a nation, united behind a tough policy, the town hall disaster broadcast a scene of angry dissent implying an administration out of touch with popular sentiment. Perhaps worst of all, while Saddam Hussein and his advisors were being entertained by the real-time broadcast, they may also have been misled into believing that American opposition to a military move is wider and deeper than is actually the case. While many would agree that the town meeting in Columbus presented an inaccurate picture of popular disaffection with policy on Iraq, the damage was done and on a scale unimaginable prior to CNN's pioneering of live news broadcasts worldwide.

Echos of Vietnam

But is the Vietnam analogy accurate? Was this demonstration a warning signal of growing alienation toward an activist U.S. foreign policy willing to use military force? Or was it more limited, driven by ethnic considerations and doubts concerning the efficacy of force in this specific instance? Was the opposition broadly based or essentially just a few very loud demonstrators who saw in the Columbus town meeting a target of opportunity? The views of participants, some with direct ethnic links to the Middle East, others with no obvious connection other than disquiet over U.S. policy perceived to have gone wrong, provide possible answers to these questions.

From these contacts it is clear that those actively opposing U.S. military action against Iraq far outnumber the estimated 80 to 100 who loudly disrupted the town meeting. Most protesters appear to be drawn from either of two constituencies. One is the large Columbus community -- estimated in excess of 10,000 -- from the Middle Eastern diaspora. Its members are both Muslim and Christian, with ethnic ties to the Arab countries of the region. Many settled in the Columbus area because they or their parents were attracted by Ohio State University or any of several smaller schools which actively recruit overseas students.

The other contingent springs from the same roots as the once large and mostly native-born anti-war movement. Some, like Rick Theis (pronounced TICE), are re-energized stalwarts from Vietnam-era protests. Others, while too young to have participated in the protest movement of the sixties and seventies, are happily taking up that tradition. Still, these parallels should not be overdrawn. Echoes of Vietnam are found in protester accusations that U.S. policy is immoral and even racist. However, unlike the days when many in the protest movement idolized Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong, there is no detectable admiration or support for Saddam Hussein or his Baath Party cadres.

This second group was by no means restricted to Central Ohio. Dr. Robert Fitrakis, a political science lecturer at Columbus State Community College, was one of the organizers of the protest demonstration. Fitrakis, a self-described member of the "democratic left," is a well-known local activist. He and two colleagues rallied activists in neighboring states through the Internet, and helped coordinate a broad coalition of local groups which included Quakers, environmentalists, feminists, Middle East ethnics and an umbrella group, the Middle East Peace Committee (MEPC), formed just prior to the Gulf War to support Desert Shield and oppose Desert Storm.

Fitrakis states that about half of the demonstrators, who he claims numbered between 300 and 400 (out of an audience of about 5,000), came from out-of-town, some from other states including Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Summoned on the Internet, which Fitrakis has found to be an ideal tool for quickly rallying support, these passionate believers are willing to travel considerable distances for causes they strongly support.

Roots of dissent

Rick Theis, a writer who was student body president at OSU in the mid-1970s, prefers not to be labeled a protester for exercising his constitutional right of dissent. He attributes his confrontational approach to CNN's refusal to allow him to voice his opinion during the broadcast and to the network's perceived abetting of what he regards as a Clinton administration propaganda exercise. When asked to pre-clear his question, he told the CNN staffer "'I didn't have to! I'm an American! I'm allowed to ask whatever I want' -- at which point she told me that I would not be allowed to ask a question." When it became clear to him that the network only intended to allow "middle-of-the-road" groups to speak, he began shouting and was ejected. Re-entering the arena, he was again promised a question, but was able to ask it only when he seized a microphone and began shouting after CNN tried to cut off further debate. Turning his opportunity into a short speech, he denounced the "CNN media event" and condemned what he describes as a U.S. policy designed to send a message "written in the blood of the Iraqi people." He also expressed indignation that he was not allowed to speak from the stage thereby denying him an equal status with the Clinton policy makers.

Ayman Ismail, an Egyptian PhD candidate resident in the U.S. for seven years while studying Regional Planning at OSU, is a spokesperson for the Islamic Society of Greater Columbus (ISGC). He describes the 1,000-member ISGC as an umbrella organization catering to the needs of the approximately 10,000 Muslims in the metropolitan area. Ismail says he tried to quiet the hecklers so he could hear the debate. He strongly disapproves of military action because of inevitable civilian casualties and because "without a change of policy there is no reason to assume that ... more of the same will bring something different." He hastily adds, "Everybody agrees that Saddam Hussein is not the right person for stability of the region." But he believes further diplomacy is needed and perhaps Saddam should be put on trial as a war criminal. However, he feels the only justification for using force would be "when [Saddam] uses force himself to threaten other countries."

Sultane Salim, president of the 200-member Muslim Students Association at OSU, began the interview by stating that, "[MSA members] do not support Saddam Hussein or his regime. In fact, we detest his leadership. If there was some way to efficiently get rid of [him] I would be for that. However, the bombing which is being planned is going to effect civilians most. Saddam Hussein is not worried about the infrastructure that is already destroyed, not worried about his own civilians and is safe in a bunker somewhere. So the bombing can do nothing to shake up Saddam Hussein."

Military intervention might be justified according to Salim if "something drastic would happen, such as Iraq firing Silk Worm missiles at U.S. ships ... or obviously ... if he attacked his neighbors." However, he does not approve of how the 1991 Gulf War was carried out by the U.S. and labels the number of civilian casualties as "phenomenal, of genocidal proportions."

In an attempt to quiet down a group of hecklers, CNN allowed one of them access to a microphone. Jon Strange, a local substitute public school teacher, then clashed sharply with Secretary Albright. Strange says his small group, the Columbus Coalition for Democratic Foreign Policy, was formed the night before to confront the Clinton administration's foreign affairs team. He considers their disruptive tactics to have been "very effective", partly because their boisterousness resulted in his being granted a platform for his views and partly because the event had been intended by the Clinton administration as "a pep rally broadcast in prime time in Baghdad to show off to Saddam Hussein that the United States was ready to go to war and obviously that was not the message that was sent".

Jad Humeidan, president of the 500-member Arabic Student Association, is a Palestinian-American in his final year studying aviation at OSU. He previously lived in Israel for eight years. Humeidan is convinced that U.S. bombing will again target the Iraqi infrastructure, which inevitably impacts heavily on civilians. He also asks, "What gives the U.S. the moral right to question France, China and Russia [for opposing the bombing] to protect their financial interests, when the U.S. itself only got involved in the Persian Gulf to protect its financial interests? If it was just for the human rights violations and to protect innocent people in Kuwait, [the U.S.] would have gotten involved in Rwanda or Bosnia or other places as much as they got involved in the Persian Gulf."

Interviewees expressed their frustration with the "managed" nature of the meeting, which they felt was misrepresented as an open forum. According to Humeidan, representatives of protesting organizations were promised a chance to ask questions, if they submitted them for editing. They were then assigned seats and their names taken, but never called. "That's why a lot of the people got frustrated ... Some of the people realized what was going on and tricked CNN. They submitted one question, then asked another." (CNN was also deceived by bogus entry passes created through the duplication service of a local Kinko's.) Despite his irritation at CNN, Humeidan felt the heckling "did not show our side in a good way."

Varying perspectives: CNN and NSC

"It has come to the point in American television news where these so called town meetings, either because of the planning of the networks and/or because of the sophistication of the politicians holding [them], have become downright sterile and scripted, serving very specific interests of the office holder or the candidate." He credits the unscripted nature of the Columbus event as enhancing the town meeting vehicle. "I thought they were as perceptive a group of questions pro and con as I had heard in any news conference or talk show on television."

Haworth admits to being surprised by the extent of the protests. He wished the protesters had instead "participated through asking questions that the audience could hear, engaged in a dialogue instead of the one-way shouting." Still he was convinced that "nobody's interests would have been served by massive and forceful expulsion of people from the hall."

David Leavy, Director of Communication at the National Security Council, acknowledges that the meeting was less effective than it might have been. "The big mistake we made," he stated, "was that we combined two standard event formats -- the town hall and the crowd event." He felt the town meeting format required "a smaller, more manageable crowd where everyone can participate, interact and ask their questions." He attributes much of the disruption to frustration on the part of a small number out of the larger crowd not pre-selected to ask questions. He also points out that CNN ran the event, insisting on total editorial control.

Leavy denies that the Columbus meeting was intended as a pep rally to demonstrate grassroots support for military action against Iraq. "It was really intended to elicit a serious discussion of a serious issue ... I think it was very important that, as you prepare to use military force, the American people understand the risks and the consequences." He cites the need for public support as one of the great lessons from the Vietnam conflict. In a post-Cold War world, it is harder to make a case that the nation is seriously threatened, so it was important to use television to reach a broad audience "to explain exactly what we're doing, to make sure they understand why we're doing it and [to give them] a chance to critique that policy. This is what democracy is all about. We were anticipating having tough questions. We didn't go out to Ohio State to get softballs. We could have gone to a military base if we wanted that ... We really wanted to explain why we were doing what we did, because we thought we had a pretty strong case." While Leavy regretted that a small number of demonstrators received far too much attention, he felt that the town meeting showed the world that the American public is engaged with and interested in foreign affairs, not disengaged as conventional wisdom and most commentators maintain.

Stumbling on the road to Baghdad

Perhaps those planning this event were blinded by the positive atmosphere at previous town meetings in Ohio, where both the president and the vice president had been well received. But earlier meetings hadn't dealt with war and peace issues that could be guaranteed to attract a coalition of groups opposed to U.S. military action abroad.

It also appears from discussions with CNN, NSC and State Department representatives that the organizers did not realize the size of the Middle Eastern diaspora in central Ohio. Many Muslims and Christians with ethnic ties to the region could be expected to share resentment of U.S. military intervention in Iraq as well as perceived favoritism to Israel, a country many regard as a greater regional threat.

Still, a better organized event with a carefully selected invited audience might have provided the kind of setting the administration presumably desired for delivering a foreign policy lesson. The town meeting on race was held in Akron last December before an invited audience, most of whom appeared to share President Clinton's views.

However, in Columbus, neither the subject nor the audience was amenable to the old formula. When genuine dialogue is sought on domestic policy still in the formative stages, a public forum such as was utilized in Akron may be both desirable and useful. This was not the case in Columbus. The administration had already decided that, short of capitulation by Saddam Hussein, a military strike would be unleashed. When the president decides military action is in the national interest, it's time to use presidential leadership to unify the country behind that decision. It is far too late for the uncertainties of public debate. Under these circumstances, it should be axiomatic that, if you want to sell a controversial policy, you should have better control over the venue and the audience participation. As Bob Fitrakis accurately points out, "It wasn't well thought through ... [The administration] shouldn't be debating questions of war on live television."

Placing three top foreign policy advisors before a self-selected audience for a debate to be broadcast worldwide by CNN was too tempting a target for the peace movement to pass up. Furthermore, the use of three speakers instead of one led to uncertainty over who should answer questions, reduced the natural sympathy a lone speaker might have been accorded when besieged by critics and may have made it more difficult for any of the three to really hit their stride in the debate. Finally, the confrontational nature of much of the questioning and circus-like atmosphere created by the chanting and some of the political theater by more radical groups virtually guaranteed that a serious, informative dialogue could not be sustained or even initiated.

The protesters interviewed were very critical of Secretaries Albright and Cohen, and National Security Advisor Berger for "sidestepping questions" and failing to supply a convincing rationale for military action. Part of this perceived failure may have been a result of the hostile atmosphere that greeted the foreign policy trio. It is doubtful that any of them are at all used to the kind of anger and abuse they were subjected to by the noisy minority that seriously disrupted the town meeting. Part of the problem also may have been the loss of control over the meeting by the CNN moderators, who were clearly caught off guard and nonplused by the raucous nature of the demonstrators.

Dissent vs. Dialogue

Some of the foreign policy team's responses appeared to imply that loud protest and hostile questioning indicate support for Saddam Hussein. If this is the message they gleaned, the President's advisors may be letting a public relations embarrassment distract them from understanding the root causes of the protest. The broad gauge alienation from American foreign policy, reminiscent of an earlier protest era, is absent. Iraq is not Vietnam.

More Iraq Crisis Articles
Back to Front Page