This semester saw UW acting as a microcosm of a world divided among those who support Bush’s call to disarm Iraq and those who want peace at all costs.

Military officials recently professed they are now prepared to invade as soon as January. However, invasion must be put on hold while a U.N. committee pores over 12,000 pages of documentation submitted by Iraqi officials detailing the reclusive nation’s weapons of mass destruction stockpile.

Political-science professor Jon Pevehouse said the process could take months and may not satisfy the Bush administration even if Iraqi statements are confirmed.

“Bush will push for constant inspections to make sure no one tries to start a program after all the attention is gone,” he said. “That will be a sticky issue as well — will the inspectors have unfettered access for another 20 years? Or is it ‘one and done?’ If they are certified weapons-free, this will be the next hurdle.”

So what’s next?

Pevehouse said he believes Americans would divide into three factions of opinion in response to U.S. military action.

“I think you will have three camps: one small camp highly supportive; one small camp highly critical; one huge camp who will ‘wait and see,'” he said. “If things go well, they will jump on board; if things go badly, look out. If we end up doing this along with little international support, the critical camp could actually be quite large.”

Regardless, Pevehouse believes caution is key.

“The administration will have to be careful — if they appear to bully Iraq too much if the U.N. declares them weapons-free, we will quickly lose what little international support we have,” he said.