A preemptive U.S. campaign against Iraq would be unjustified given current conditions, two noted Harvard professors agreed yesterday in a Sever Hall debate.

Samuel P. Huntington, Weatherhead University professor, and David Little, Dunphy professor of the practice in religion, ethnicity and international conflict at Harvard Divinity School, discussed U.S. policy toward Iraq for about an hour in front of an audience of more than 100.

“It seems to me that the threat [Saddam Hussein] poses at the moment falls far short of the standards that would be desirable in terms of implementing a policy of preemption,” Huntington said.

“Consequently, I would say, ‘let’s hold off,’” he said.

Huntington, who is widely known for his theories on the “clash of civilizations” in the post-Cold War world, did argue that preemptive attacks could be justified in the future, given the post-Sept. 11 threat of terrorism.

Little spoke about his fear of what he saw as the administration’s unilateral tendencies.

“For me, the most significant problem is the gravity of the risks of a war with Iraq that is undertaken without substantial international support,” he said.

He called the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq a continuation of a “pattern of initial defiance toward international institutions and norms followed, under pressure, by reluctant and even grudging acquiescence.”

“Such a geopolitical vision combines neocolonialism and neoimperialism in an extremely frightening combination,” he said.

Huntington agreed that any future action against Iraq should come only with the authorization of the U.N., and called the administration’s goal of installing a democratic government in Iraq “a joke.”

He argued a more plausible scenario was the installation of a “friendly” government, which would give the U.S. access to Iraq’s vast oil resources.

Both professors agreed the current focus on Iraq is distracting the administration from what Little argued was the more serious threat—al-Qaeda.

Huntington also contrasted the threat of terrorism after Sept. 11 with the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

“We have now moved into a cold world, which is unpredictable, unsafe and, in many respects, very unfriendly,” Huntington said. “We have to learn how to live in this world.

“I’m not urging people to live in fear,” he said. “But it certainly makes a lot of sense to live with fear.”

The event, sponsored by the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Student Council, was moderated by Monica D. Toft, the assistant director of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies.

Audience members expressed surprise at the amount of agreement in what was billed as a debate.

“Their perspectives were very parallel,” said Shai Kalansky, a visiting undergraduate from the University of California, San Diego. “I thought there’d be more engagement with each other within what they each had to say, as opposed to congruence.”