On the heels of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld’s ouster and the midterm elections—in which the war in Iraq was considered a prevailing factor—students debated the relative merits of “staying the course” versus “leaving Iraq to the Iraqi people.”

Hosted by the Campus Political Society, last Thursday’s debate—the fourth in a semester-long series of seven—explored the question “How and under what conditions the United States should withdraw from Iraq?”

In front of a crowd of about 60 attendees, graduate student Kaveri Rajaraman and Katherine E. Smith ’10 argued for immediate U.S. withdrawal on behalf of the Harvard College Student Advocates for Human Rights and the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice. Opposing them, representing the Harvard Republican Club and The Harvard Salient, were Ryan A. Delany ’09 and Colin J. Motley ’10.

Delany, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps for four years after high school, argued that “the only thing preventing [Iraq] from going into all-out civil war are the coalition troops.” He added that he wouldn’t “support any U.S. war blindly.”

Citing polls from various Web sites, Smith responded that most Iraqis are dissatisfied with the U.S. occupation and called for the United States to “truly honor democracy and leave Iraq to the Iraqi people.”

Conceding that the situation in Iraq isn’t “a bed of roses,” Motley responded that “to pull out all U.S. troops now would be to embolden our enemy,” eliciting doubtful laughs from his opposition.

“Iraq was a model for stability...before the first U.S. war,” countered Rajaraman.

Republican Club Member-at-Large Meghan E. Grizzle ’07 said she was “very disappointed” with the demeanor and quality of the team supporting U.S. withdrawal.

But the evening’s moderator, Tim R. Hwang ’08, said the debate “went really well.”

“Especially with an issue as contentious as the terms of withdrawal from Iraq,” he said. “It’s more than likely it will transform into an all-out mudslinging screamfest.”