Proof that there is no easy answer to the “War on Terrorism” was shown Wednesday night in a debate between UW-Madison political science professor Donald Downs and local activist and historian Allen Ruff.

The debate, sponsored by a multitude of campus- and citywide activist groups, centered on the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks.

Downs said he supports military attacks against terrorism.

“If we fail to respond, the Taliban will hit us again,” Downs said.

Ruff, on the other side of the issue, said he would like to see the U.S. practice a more cautious approach.

“We must go beyond the moment and understand the strategic interests of the terrorists,” Ruff said.

Both Downs and Ruff opened the floor to questions from the student panel sponsoring the event.

Questions asked by the panel ranged from the advantages to Bush’s antiterrorist campaign to questioning how the United States can justify the killing of innocent people in Afghanistan.

“It is imperative we wage this battle,” Downs said in response to a question concerning the advantages of the Bush administration’s comprehensive approach to fighting the war on terrorism. “But for this campaign to be successful, someone must be leading it, and there needs to be coalition and diplomacy to win the minds of the Muslim world.”

The United Nation’s withdrawal of aide to Afghanistan was another subject addressed in the debate.

A student panelist quoted UNISEF when he said, in addition to the 300,000 children that normally die in Afghanistan during winter, another 100,000 are expected to die this year because of military action. He asked debaters how the United States can reconcile the war in Afghanistan with compassion toward the millions of people who are in dire need of aide.

Ruff said even current expressions of compassion by the United States are not necessarily supportive of the civilians of Afghanistan.

“Some of the most famous and respected aid agencies in the world condemned this propagandistic drop of the 37,000 value meals in Afghanistan,” Ruff said. “These agencies said the drop would only exacerbate the situation, and it is known already that the men with the guns are the ones who picked up the food.”

After hearing both points of view, another panelist asked when military action is justifiable.

“I am concerned with the unattended consequences,” Downs answered. “It is a question of self-defense and revenge.”

Ruff posed the question of whether military action is a solution to the entire terrorist problem.

He said the idea that U.S. military action can completely wipe out terrorism is not necessarily true.

“Self-defense does not come from dropping bombs and killing more innocent victims,” Ruff said.

The audience, made up of UW students and Madison residents alike, lined up to ask the debaters questions following the debate.

Attendees said they wanted to get a better understanding of the war on terrorism, as well as question the opinions of the debaters.

“I came tonight to better understand the situation,” said Madison resident Johnny Richardson. “It is a complicated situation, and I am definitely not in support of this war.”